Government rejects Card Check as “unreliable”
posted at 12:15 pm on September 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
For more than a year, opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have argued that its card-check mechanism for union-organizing elections would create opportunities for thuggery and corruption that would make organizing elections unreliable. Finally, the government has agreed with that position … or at least one part of the government. Legal Services Corporation has sued its employees to prevent a card-check election from organizing its labor force:
While the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress press to allow private-sector workers to unionize by signing authorization cards instead of voting by secret ballot, the government’s legal-aid program for the poor has declared the so-called “card check” strategy “unreliable” and rejected an effort by some of its own workers to organize that way.
The Legal Services Corp., a congressionally chartered, taxpayer-funded entity, even hired a law firm to rebuff the efforts of workers in its oversight offices to gain union representation by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), forcing the workers to conduct a vote by secret ballot later this week.
The LSC’s decision has prompted concerns on Capitol Hill that the government may be trying to impose a solution on private businesses that its own agencies and panels are reluctant to follow.
Calling himself a longtime supporter of the LSC and its mission, Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, in a letter last week obtained by The Washington Times, said it was “troubling to learn that LSC is now using hard-fought-for taxpayer funds to retain a law firm and engage in a campaign to potentially frustrate employees’ desire to exercise their right to join a union.”
Harkin’s argument is specious. If a majority of LSC’s employees want to join a union, then a secret-ballot election will deliver that result. The problem for the IFPTE is that they can’t get a majority to vote for organizing, and they need card check to put pressure on the reluctant employees to surrender. In a secret ballot, neither the employer nor the union knows who cast which vote, so that neither can exact any retribution — which is what makes secret ballot elections the most reliable.
If Harkin really had the best interests of employees in mind, he would fight tooth and nail to protect the secret ballot. Instead, he wants to strip workers of an essential element of protection and democracy. Whose interests does that serve? Not the workers, that’s for certain.
Congress should take a lesson from the LSC, which has its own motivations to be sure, but also is acting to protect its employees from union arm-twisting.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This is going to be another “do as I say” moments.
VegasRick on September 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The Democrats don’t give a rat’s ass for the ‘worker’. This is union payback.
GarandFan on September 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Card Check will pass by the end of the year by using the new and improved Van Jones method.
In the middle of the night.
Knucklehead on September 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Ah oh, VP Biden promised the union workers that they would have Card Check by the end of the year when he spoke to them on Labor Day. Such a shame.
Cindy Munford on September 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
When enough Democrat congressmen know they won’t be returning, look for all this stuff to pass.
I just hope the GOP replacements are sharp enough to remove the cancerous legislation before it does all the damage.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
The real thuggery is visited on the thousands of workers who are fired or threatened for trying to organize a union workplace every year and the whistle-blowers at the LSC who fear retribution — with no union to stand up for them — for exposing the spendthrift ways of upper management.
Bleeds Blue on September 9, 2009 at 12:29 PM
This relates to an earlier post about the U.S. dropping to #2 in competitiveness. If card check was ever passed we would see a drop even further.
fourdeucer on September 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The card check legislation is completely based on the assumption that all workers want to be unionized. By getting rid of the secret ballot all of the freedoms to vote without retribution by one side or the other, are removed.
Koa on September 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Ah, so you want a balance of thuggery. I’m sure there are companies who employ coersive tactics on union organizers. That’s why the ballots are secret. Or, hadn’t you thought of that?
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Yes, it gives new meaning to the phrase “Look for the union label”.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I can’t believe Tom Harkin told a lie. It’s so unlike him.
a capella on September 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM
So you vote for parasitic tapeworms having the right to organize in your body? Union / tapeworms –same leaching of good into bad. I prefer no parasites.
NaCly dog on September 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Aye, there’s the rub.
rightside on September 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
As alway the elites in the government want exclusion from the very rules that they insist we rabble must live by.
Tommy_G on September 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Yes, especially those home care givers. They need a union to protect them from the mistreatment of handicapped thugs. You are an idiot.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Card check is just another political dem hack job.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
You just insulted “idiots” around the globe.
VegasRick on September 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Unions have outlived thier usefulness. They seem to destroy every profession in which they meddle. Teachers, nurses, etc
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM
My apologies to idiots.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You. Are. A. Moron.
Knucklehead on September 9, 2009 at 12:38 PM
You’re right. No one needs a living wage, health care benefits or a safe working any more. We’ll be much better off as a nation when we return the kind of Dickensian squalor that the defined working class life until FDR. Child labor, industrial accidents, six-day weeks and 12 hour days — how great will that be?
Bleeds Blue on September 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Really? Would Congress ever possibly do such a thing?
Mr. Bingley on September 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM
On the other hand, don’t forget the federal employees that might want to unionize. The idea of Rahm Emanuel “crackin’ some skulls” is probably a pretty easy sale.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 12:41 PM
I say again, Unions should be proscribed – worldwide!
OldEnglish on September 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM
BleedsBlue is a member of the NEA. (teacher’s union)
alwyr on September 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Yes, and him being a “combat veteran, too.” Oh, wait…..
Wethal on September 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
The far left nut case actually believes that this stuff happens.
Why shouldn’t a company have the power to fire someone who is trying to destroy the company?
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Handicapped Person: I need to use the commode, please.
Unionized Homecare Giver: You used the commode already this morning.
Handicapped Person: I’m sorry, I need to go again. PLease help me.
Unionized Homecare Giver: Well the rules say I am only required to let you use the crapper once every 8 hours and you already went this morning.
Handicapped Person: Please help me, I need to go.
Unionized Homecare Giver: Nothing I can do about it, but let me tell you if you mess that bed your lying in, I’m not cleaning it up. The union says I only have to change the sheets once a day, and yours have already been changed. Don’t go making trouble for me or I’ll have to sue you. Now hush, I wanna watch the Price is Right.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The idea that unions were ever needed in the first place, is the first myth that was pushed by the labor movement.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 12:47 PM
You think that unions are the reason that “Dickensian squalor” went away? Ever considered that maybe productivity had something to do with that?
Where unions improved productivity, you might have a point. But it’s pretty obvious that unions don’t improve the efficiency of production.
I employ non-union workers. I avoid making people work twelve hour days because overtime makes it cost as much as fifteen hours of straight time, and nobody works very effectively after about 10.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Are you actually stupid enough to believe that any of those things are the result of unions?
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Unions have not done a thing for Nurses and Teachers other than force them to join. Thanks to unions, the quality of nursing care and teaching in some places has declined considerably. As I said, there was time when unions were needed and useful. That time is over. They are mostly thugs and bullies that are used for political purposes.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
No there wasn’t.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM
What do you expect from a guy whose entire military service was based on a lie?
highhopes on September 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
We disagree on that point.
bloggless on September 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
According to Bleedy, unions have kept industrial accidents from occurring, something which will come as quite a surprise to the union maintenance guy who was killed in the Twin Cities last week while working his job.
Bishop on September 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I will have to disagree with this, Unions did and still do have their place. In most of their current forms I beleive corruption runs rampant and they work towards the destruction of the industries they work with instead of to a mutually benificial situation for both management and rank and file. Being in a Union myself I have come to see the reasons why they are needed. Being a free market capitalist through and through is my own conflicting cross to bear.
Koa on September 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Card check must have been similar to the election process of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq where you have an unlimited amount of intimidation thrust upon the voters. But hey what else can you expect from socialist and Sen. Harkin is most definitely one of them.
larvcom on September 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I disagree with that. Labor unions had their place before the nanny state came in and worried about things like worker safety. At the same time, they acted much like a craft guild to make sure that the workers were qualified. That somehow morphed into organizations where some highly paid thugs were there defending paying $75/hour (salary and benefits) to individuals performing unskilled labor.
highhopes on September 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Unions have a chance of working where collective bargaining is good. This is mainly in low skilled jobs. Skilled workers are generally better off where they can be rewarded for their skills.
Forcing workers into peezinapod union positions causes even the best teachers, plumbers, and (God help us) doctors to slip into mediocrity at best.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
That is such a lie. The laws are currently slanted so far toward unionizing that even looking at an employee cross-eyed who supported unionizing will get an employer sanctioned. Once someone is heavily involved in unionizing it becomes virtually impossible to discipline that employee for seriouis misconduct as such will be called “retaliation” by the courts.
Why do libs fear secret ballots? What is wrong with a secret ballot? Why is it good enough for democracy but not good enough for unionizing? the secret ballot is fair for everyone involved, union, employer, and employee.
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I have no problem with unions representing classes of workers in collective bargaining. I highly object to the role the NEA has in not only collective bargaining but in dictating public policy in education.
highhopes on September 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
What amazes me even more is the drone-like hold unions have over their members. I know union members who are otherwise nice people who have solid conservative values. They vote straight Democrat tickets, despite their reservations in doing so, because that is what the union told them to do.
highhopes on September 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Bishop on September 9, 2009 at 12:53 PM
The labor movement as a whole, including unions, supportive elected officials and progressive regulators. Comparing one death to the working conditions that existed in, for example, the 1920s, is worse than ludicrous.
Unions are a significant boon to non-union workers sometimes, as well. See what happens to all those non-union auto workers in Kentucky and Alabama should should the bailout fail and the UAW go down the tubes…they’ll be living like Wal-Mart workers in few years.
Bleeds Blue on September 9, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Public sector unions work against the public interest by design.
The NEA is a case in point. We pay a flat rate for workers simply to show up, rather than rewarding skilled teachers to get results.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM
If workers want to be involved in the running of a company, let them buy their own! Whomsoever owns the business, runs the business – however they may choose. Workers are free to decline any job offer.
Workers are just that – paid to do a job.
OldEnglish on September 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
highhopes on September 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
We are in agreance there…represent the workers, stop empire building for personal gain and greed. The unions should not be the huge political lobbying forces they have become.
Koa on September 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
And, as a large lobbying organization, the NEA lobbys not for education, but for the selfish interests of the union, whether or not that helps the teachers or education in general.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I will repeat: how can it be legal/constitutional to force all employees into a union by a mere majority vote? How can a union extorting resources from a business by monopolizing its labor be acceptable?
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Again, b.s. Union’s had and sometimes in some industries continue to have usefulness. But to claim that without unions we would all end up as slaves is pretty stupid. and, goes against the evidence since most of the private workforce is already not unionized.
Moreover, countries that achieve economic success always limit child labor and work-hours, so the chances of congress overturning the FLSA is pretty slim. Nor is it likely that OSHA will disappear anytime soon.
Unions can be incredibly bad – like teachers’ unions who have destroyed public education – and the auto unions who helped bankrupt the auto companies. But they can also do some good (I’m thinking agricultural workers, for instance). And, historically they did do good.
But it is a case of diminishing, or even negative, returns. For unions to continue to exist, they have to keep offering new benefits to members. Thus, they now work toward defending even the worst miconduct. And, they seek ever greater benefits and ever lessening accountability and responsibility from employees. At some point this creates a situation where the employer simply cannot compete in teh marketplace and the union basically puts its members out of work.
Moreover, Union leadership tends to be ultra-liberal and support liberal candidates, when teh rank-and-file does not agree. How is that right – to use the members’ money against the members’ beliefs?
And, there is certainly no need for unions for gov’t employees. Most state (and federal) civil service laws offer more protection than any private sector unionized workplace to begin with. Moreover, most federal and state jobs pay far more than private sector jobs (garbage men in my city make $45k a year before overtime, plus have greate health care and pensions).
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I wish that labor unions were required to file annual reports similar to those filed by nonprofits, detailing how much of union dues were spent on administration, labor negotiation, member benefits, political lobbying, etc. It would be a real eye opener for all.
jwolf on September 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM
After seeing my sister teach in public schools for thirty years, I agree with Applebutter on this one as far as teachers unions.
I do think that unions had a place in history. but what that place is is still under debate, due to the extreme history makeover that we see every day by the liberal left.
Just like big Government, “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and Union management is no exception to this rule.
catlady on September 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Lets have a card-check vote on banning public sector unions.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Unions bring to mind the old adage “cut your nose off to spit your face.”
They would rather bankrupt a company or industry or COUNTRY than try to resolve any profitability issues within. Employees do not take the risks or put up the capital that company owners or stockholders do.
catlady on September 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
What did unions ever do for anyone?
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Koa on September 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I disagree. Unions do nothing for anyone, that they couldn’t do for themselves.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Its arguable that they did a service in demanding improvements in worker safety, particularly in the coal mining industry. But they became crime syndicates when they started using their monopoly to demand higher wages, benefits, and easy working conditions.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Are you asking for someone to lend moral support to BleedsBlue?
I’m not a fan of unions, but I’ll conceed that in some very low skilled positions where it really doesn’t matter who does the work, unions can benefit the workers in the short term. Whether that benefits society is another matter. In the long term, those are jobs that can probably be done by machine.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:25 PM
The idea that companies didn’t care if their workers got hurt on the job is one of those myths that is so common, that even people who should know better have bought into it. Companies did care, and it made economic sense for them to care, for a number of reasons.
1) It took time to train workers, the more skilled and experienced you became, the more efficient and valueable to the company you became. If you got hurt, and had to be replaced with someone less experienced, that cost the company money.
2) Employees refused to work jobs that were known to be dangerous, unless paid more. Making working conditions safer, saved labor costs.
3) Injured employees hurt moral, making the rest of your work force less productive.
4) Bosses aren’t monsters. They do care.
As to the issue of ensuring the workers are qualified, there are other methods for squaring that circle.
There are recommendations from others in the field.
There are pre-employment skills tests.
There are a variety of licensing schemes.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Bleeds Blue on September 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Hey moron – take a look at right to work states and the growth of business – namely the south – Georgia, Flordia, Alabama, Miss – now guess what corrupt, overhead union-laden states they earned that business from – Unioniized Ohio, Michigan, Cali, NY and Indiana…
If you think SEIU – janitors, doorman and maids have earned the right to dictate American labor policy – I have a feather duster for you to show up your arse.
12% of GM’s costs, both pre government ownership and post government ownership were payrolls to people not even working… Gee, wonder why they have been in the tank for 10+ years, losing marketshare and factories, plus domestic and foreign sales…
Odie1941 on September 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Which is why low skilled workers are rapidly being replaced with automation.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Which is actually what I do for a living.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Wait, there are actually people arguing that unions ensure the qualifications of workers?
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Liberals either assume that most parents hate their kids, or that somehow companies sneak into houses in the middle of the night and kidnap kids to work in their factories. (China not withstanding.)
The reason why children have had to work, throughout history, is basic economics. The productivity of their parents was insufficient to feed the family all by itself. If the kids didn’t work, the families didn’t eat.
As capitalism brought about the invention of labor saving devices, individual productivity increased. Eventually it reached a point where a single parent could produce enough to feed his family. As this happened, children stopped working. If you examine real history, you will find that child labor had virtually disappeared well before laws banning it were passed. The only places where child labor was still found, family farms, family stores, etc, were also places that were exempted from child labor laws. Funny thing that.
As to 80 hour work weeks. Same reason. Increasing labor productivity has made it possible for a single person to support a family with only 40 hours of work. 100 years ago, that wasn’t possible.
It was capitalism, not unions, that improved the lot of workers, world wide.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Worker safety had been improving, long before the start of the union movement. See the reason’s I have outlined in my 1:27 post.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
You made the claim that unions have a use. I asked you to be more specific. I can’t refute an argument that isn’t made.
This is a form of the minimum wage argument.
Sure, a few workers will benefit for a short period of time.
But anytime you force the cost of a job to be above the economic benefit of that job, you have doomed that job to oblivion, and that worker to unemployment.
Saying that it is possible for a union to extort higher wages for it’s members is not evidence that unions are needed.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:40 PM
My condolences.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM
The biggest beneficiary to unions are unskilled workers who manage to get hired as skilled workers. They make the same hourly rate as the skilled worker they displace. And at the very least, belonging to the union offers a labrynthine route to dismissal by management.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Not a single one of the reasons you list, constitute a reason why unions are needed.
The mob can get you the same benefits.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
So, your saying unions benefit slackers?
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
That’s not what you asked.
I am.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Good points. After I wrote that, I started asking myself what evidence I had that worker safety conditions were bad before unions, and the only thing I could come up with was a bunch of scenes from movies.
I think I’ve been had yet again.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
WHich is why unions always end up killing the companies they leech off of.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Well, so long as we are in agreement.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
One of the most dangerous places to work, for many years, was a farm. Most people don’t realize how dangerous horses and mules can be. The invention of the tractor saved untold thousands of lives.
Things have improved hugely in the last few hundred years, but unionization had nothing to do with that improvement.
The same argument can be made for OSHA and govt regulations.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Sometimes they do. That isn’t the only benefit, it’s just that it does help out the worthless.
Here’s an example of a businessman who actually gains an advantage from having a union. I had a friend who was an industrial electrical contractor. He kept a very small core crew. This reduced his overhead when jobs were scarce. When he bid on a job that would require more labor than his core crew could handle, he would skip down to the IBEW hall and hire the overflow labor he required.
This helped him over non-union contractors in a number of ways. First, he could change the size of his company immediately. Second, he was under no obligation to hire his workers for more than a day. Third, the IBEW workers are generally skilled. Fourth, he could choose to keep the workers who demonstrated greater skill, and add to his core.
Granted, these practices are the antithesis of most unions. But he found a way to use unionization to his benefit, and to the benefit of his employees.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Helping the worthless is the job of charity, not companies.
As to your friends ability to hire contractors on short notice, unions aren’t the only source of short term labor.
I know of many companies that hire temporary help without having to resort to labor unions.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Mark,
While I generally agree with your point, I think it is going too far to claim that Gov’t has no place in worker safety.
There are still plenty of unscrupulous business owners out there who care nothing about employee safety, etc. Think clothing sweat factories, which do exist in the U.S. there are industries where the labor is unskilled enough that replacing an injured worker is no bother. Picking fruit, working the line in some factories, even some basic labor construction jobs.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that unions and the gov’t had no role in improving worker safety in coal mines, for instance.
While your point that business should care about worker safety is true in the long run – I think those changes would have accrued much more slowly w/o gov’t involvement or unions.
Maybe you are correct and we would have gotten there without the unions, but I’m not sure there is any hard evidence to support that. What country has acheived significant workplace safety w/o gov’t involvement or unions?
I do agree that we have gone way to far in the other direction and that unions for the most part now do more harm than good.
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 2:04 PM
“Secret ballot is the American way – and for good reason. It insures that those who agree or who disagree will not be persecuted by others.
Not for one minute do I want to go into the voting booth and sign a sheet of paper that can be seen by the whole world. People hurt each other over politics and this President is setting the American workers up to have to comply or be outsiders.
Unions should hold democratic private ballot elections like the country does.
In my humble opinion this is just one more step towards controlling workers – and towards socialism. We are going there fast enough without it.
I do not want anyone forcing me to be a part of something I do not need. I must respect that right for others and think the rest of society should too.”
(from unknown blogger)
I was in the CWA many years and they were always shoving politics at us. They were always trying to tell us how to vote (democrat of course). Let us all fight to keep the secret ballot and defeat this Card Check.
KCinLV on September 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
No disagreement. But you asked for someone who benefitted. I didn’t say it was good for society. It is not. A low skilled worker that displaces a highly skilled worker is bad for the employer, bad for the highly skilled worker, and generally bad for society.
As for the other places to aquire temporary help, again, no disagreement. The advantage to my friend was speed. At the time, and probably now, there is no place other than the union hall where people with those specific skills can be found waiting around for work.
Personally, I’ve had great luck with temp agencies for finding skilled employees that I eventually hire on a more permanent basis. But if I needed, say 20 industrial electricians, and they had to be able to start work tomorrow, a temp agency would probably not be my best bet.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Your point is self refuting.
You claim that unions have played a role in eliminating these kinds of conditions, then you admit that despite the fact that we have both unions and govt regulations, such companies still exist.
The fact that there are bad people in the world who don’t care about others is a fact of life. In fact such people ignore govt regulations and don’t use union labor, so neither govt or unionization is capable of getting rid of them either.
The only solution for such people are exposure and lawsuits. The same solutions that existed before unionization and govt regulation.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Be careful of that correlation/causation thing.
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
As to your belief that unions helped to speed such progress is debateable.
I can point to govt statistics that show no difference in the rate of safety improvement in the era before unions or OSHA, vs after.
Regardless, alternative histories can be interesting to debate, but will always remain impossible to prove, one way or the other.
You are free to believe whatever you want, but you won’t be able to find any data to support your belief.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Actually, don’t the lawsuits require that some regulation be broken?
Count to 10 on September 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Perhaps because they are all at the union hall. Had the union hall not existed, they would have been at the temp agency.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM
The US for one. The period prior to unionization and govt regulations saw huge increases in labor safety.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM
No. A reckless endangerment suit does not require any laws or regulations to be broken.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Also, if there is an employment contract, and the employer did not live up to his end.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Thought of a further point regarding employment contracts. Most current contracts do not cover things like employee safety, but that is because we live in a world in which such things are already covered by existing regulations. Makes no sense for the employment contract to duplicate what already exists. IN a world where such regulations do not exist, contracts could spell out the level of safety required, or they could just specify that best practices be used.
Which leads to another problem with regulations, they tend to freeze current technology in place. If a newer, safer method is developed, before it can be used by anyone, the maker of the product needs to first prove it to the govt, then they have to wait for the govt to rewrite the regulations before anyone can risk buying your new product.
These extra steps make it more difficult and expensive to introduce new technologies. So unless there is significant improvement, many companies won’t bother.
Worse, since the govt has to hold hearings on whether the new technology is in fact better, this gives the makers of the older technologies a chance to argue against adoption of the new tech. It also gives them a chance to bribe the regulators to lock out any and all competition.
Govt regulation in many ways, is just a cover for corruption.
MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Again, no disagreement. I didn’t say the union benefitted everyone. And I certainly didn’t say it benefitted the people standing around with hands in pockets. I said it benefitted my friend, and the people he hired. And, incidentally, it benefitted his customers.
You are arguing that unions aren’t needed, and never were. I don’t disagree. But your questions, and my responses, deal with the people who are benefitted by unions. In any framework, including those imposed by labor unions, those smart enough to use the system can benefit.
Whether this has been an overall service to mankind is beyond the powers of my little crystal ball. Would man have been better off if collective bargaining was never allowed? I just don’t know.
I will say that we aren’t path independent. How we got to where we are depends on a lot of things, and some of those things are unions.
Would technologies that allow automation have been invented if labor costs weren’t artificially inflated by powerful unions? Probably, but I doubt it would have happened as fast.
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM
No, it refutes your claim that business is always looking out for the health and welfare of its employees. That simply is not historically factual.
I’m as much a free labor / capitalist as anyone, and your points regarding labor and gov’t regulation versus worker safety just are not true.
Without unions and gov’t regulation, coal mines would be much worse than they are in terms of danger. Same holds true for other industries.
the free market and capitalist success does work to make workplaces safer, but it does so at a much slower pace than gov’t regulation does. And, probably would not go as far.
This may be a good or bad thing, depending on the issue involved. But, to claim that workplace safety would be the same today if there had never been any unions or gov’t regulation is really dreaming.
For instance, it is unlikely that we would be at a 40 hour work-week w/o the FLSA. You may consider the 40-hour work week a bad thing, but to claim the result would have been the same w/o the FLSA is untrue. Same holds true for child labor. Most people would not allow their children to work in factories / mines today b/c there is no economic need, but to claim that no factories / mines would employ children w/o the FLSA is not accurate.
You seem to be claiming that today’s workplace safety would be the same or better w/o gov’t or unions. My point w/ sweatshops is to call b.s. on that claim. Particularly when Workers’ Comp laws bar employees from suing employers.
Now, we can argue about whether the rules and regs have gond to far (and I would agree that they have), but I just see no evidence supporting your take that saftey would be as good w/o gov’t regulations (which in turn were pushed by the unions).
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 2:54 PM
So, are you now in favor of unions? Or is it that you prefer one or the other, unions OR gov’t regulation, but not both?
Or are you trying to claim each individual could enter into a contract with teh employer. I defend employers in union labor situation, and even I will admit that employers are not going to sit down and negotiate w/ individual employees. Instead, it is take-it-or-leave it. Which is fine, but don’t claim that workers can individually negotiate for better working conditions.
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Yes, and the period after saw even greater. There is a difference between arguing about improvements in technology which improve safety by their very nature (i.e., to use your earlier example – the tractor).
And, in other comments, you speak of lawsuits. Workers’ Comp stops employees from suing employers. the Employers are the ones who wanted Workers Comp b/c they started to lose lawsuits.
Early on, the tort laws in this country were designed such that it was practically impossible for an employee to win b/c of things like contributory negligence, which said that if the victim is even 1% negligent than they cannot recover. In almost any accident it is easy to prove that someone was at least 1% negligent in the incident leading to their injury, even if the employer was 99% negligent.
The laws started to change such that “contributory negligence” faded out. At that point employers started to lose the lawsuits (and of course, employer practices actually DID NOT change as a result of the lawsuits they won when an employee was injurred), employers wanted a system that prevented workers from suing them. The compromise was Workers’ Comp – which gave a benefit to workers w/o regard to fault but barred them from suing the employer.
So, if we want lawsuits to police bad practices by employers we will have to repeal all of the workers’ comp laws. I’m not necissarily against that, but I’m not sure we have good experience w/ personal injury litigation setting standards (think health care).
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM
And frankly, I don’t think allowing employees to gather together and collectively bargain is a bad thing or anti-conservative.
The issue is in the laws that regulate it. If the laws are so one-sided as to force the employer to always concede and have no power in negotiations, then there is no free market in the negotiations. Which is where we are close to being today and the laws being proposed push us over the edge.
Monkeytoe on September 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I’d add “except where the employer is the government.”
applebutter on September 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Let’s face it nobody wants a union.
hotdax on September 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM