User Comments

1. 

   3/11/09

   RuinousRight

   Mmmm..... I'm not real familiar with this issue and I haven't been around industries where unions are prominent, so I can only comment on what I know thus far. I also think unions have both positives and negatives.
   
   First off, was it Obama that proposed this bill? The article I reference below states:
   "despite President Obama’s generally strong backing of labor, Washington has also been full of speculation over whether the White House really wants to take on a contentious battle with business at a time when the economy continues to reel."
   
   Second, your view is that it is simply payback for campaign donations, but siding with employees over corporations is generally in line with Democratic thinking and supported by many who voted for Obama.
   
   Those who support the bill argue that a simpler procedure is needed to keep companies from intimidating workers who try to unionize. The measure would also require companies to submit to binding arbitration if they can't come to terms on a contract 120 days after the union submits cards demonstrating that workers want to be represented. Supporters argue that the strict limit is needed to keep companies from endlessly delaying implementation when the workforce opts for a union.
   
   Those who oppose the bill argue that the loss of a secret ballot will simply allow labor organizers to coerce their co-workers into joining a union whether they want one or not. Executives and small business owners fear the mandatory provision and short time frame will give negotiators who know little about their businesses huge sway over pay, workforce rules and other issues that could significantly undercut competitiveness.
   
   IMO... both sides present seemingly legitimate arguments. Perhaps a compromised bill that keeps ballots secret, but expedites the process is the way to go. I've witnessed businesses delaying decisions that would justly benefit their employees simply for their own gains. Also, corporations are beholden to the shareholders above everyone else, so there is a motivation to cut corners wherever possible.
   
   Another thing to consider... At the peak of the Bush boom in 2007, the typical American worker was earning barely more after inflation than the typical American worker had earned in 2000. Out of those flat earnings, that worker was paying more for food, energy and out-of-pocket costs of health care. That fact will probably help any bill that favors employees over big business.
   
   Card Check Bill Moves Forward As Lobbying Battle Heats Up
   www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/03/card_check_bill_...

   [reply]
   1. 

      3/11/09

      NewBlogger2008

      The real problem I have with the bill is the fact that they are removing the secret ballot. That has been part of the American system for over a hundred years. To remove the secret ballot for union organizers in order to "stream-line process" is an absolute joke! Supporters are right though, it will stream-line the process to forming unions, with intimidation tactics that was prevalent before the secret ballot was initiated. If there is a compromise bill, then the secret ballot must be preserved. However, if you ask me, unions are outdated anyway. There are already hundreds of laws on the books that protect workers.
   2. 

      3/11/09

      MadameX

      That's not accurate, NewBlogger, as I'm sure you know. The bill provides an alternate, streamlined route to union certification, as a means of alleviating the delay that is often associated with the current process. IF more than 50% of employees choose to sign representation cards out in the open, then the union is certified without election. Please point us to the place in the bill where it removes the election option...I just can't seem to find that part.
      
      This bill increases penalties on employers for violating various labor provisions, which is the reason business doesn't want it--but that's a hard thing to sell as a problem, so they're focusing instead on the certification process.
   3. 

      3/11/09

      NewBlogger2008

      Madame- The problem is "out in the open", leaves significant room for intimidation tactics. This is a serious problem because employees can (and certainly will be) coerced, whether physically or verbally, into forming a union. And do not think for one moment that union bosses will not resort to intimidation to get what they want. That is the exact reason the secret ballot was initiated in the first place.
   4. 

      3/11/09

      Anok

      It was also initiated so that employers couldn't intimidate those who wish to form unions.
      
      In fact, it was far more than than what you propose. Companies today still try intimidation techniques, and fire union supporters if they can get away with it to dissuade people from forming unions.
2. 

   3/11/09

   Anok

   The EFCA has been bantered about for a few years now, if I remember correctly, and it doesn't take away the choice for secret ballots. It's a much larger bill than just ballots - and encompasses a lot of legalities and addresses union busting policies from companies.
   
   We'll see - right now as far as i know, it's not fully on the table.
   
   SO wait and see.

   [reply]