Card Check

[stebo0728]

Ok, so lets see how the score card falls here with you folks for the Card Check bill, the "Employee Free Choice Act", or as I like to call the "Employee Intimidation Act"

To sum it up, organizations of employees wishing to form a union will no longer have a vote by secret ballot, only a count of publicly checked survey cards.

[smockers83]

Ok, so lets see how the score card falls here with you folks for the Card Check bill, the "Employee Free Choice Act", or as I like to call the "Employee Intimidation Act"

To sum it up, organizations of employees wishing to form a union will no longer have a vote by secret ballot, only a count of publicly checked survey cards.

It would be the demise of the US economy. Any pro-labor policy is a stupid-a** policy. A union workforce is in effect a mini communist state. If you don't think so, I'll argue and defend that one to my death.

Collectives in an economy just don't work, whether within an economy or an economy as a whole. It's been proven since ancient times. Why humans haven't yet learned that simple fact is beyond me.

So a scorecard you want? On a scale of A-F, how about a Z?

[IBCoupe]

Collectives in an economy just don't work, whether within an economy or an economy as a whole.

Does that logic apply to corporations?

[stebo0728]

The problem is not in collectives, the problem is in the misconception of who the jobs belong to. People with union mentality seem to believe that their job "belongs" to them. It does not. It belongs to the employer.

[IBCoupe]

While that's technically true, I can't help but remember that it take two to tango. Unions do serve to balance bargaining positions and power inequalities. From a contracting perspective, a union makes it a negotiation of two equals, versus many negotiations between a person who holds all the cards and a person who holds nearly none.

[smockers83]

Collectives in an economy just don't work, whether within an economy or an economy as a whole.

Does that logic apply to corporations?

No because you're confusing the economic idea of a collective with a group of people.

While that's technically true, I can't help but remember that it take two to tango. Unions do serve to balance bargaining positions and power inequalities. From a contracting perspective, a union makes it a negotiation of two equals, versus many negotiations between a person who holds all the cards and a person who holds nearly none.

Unions don't serve to balance anything. They make the labor market for a company a communistic institution in which there is a bunch of central planning. Unions may have been a good idea up until maybe 30 years ago.

Corporations have hiring and payroll policies and corporations know how free markets work. When you have a non-unionized labor force, or a free labor market, corporations will compete with each other for labor. If they don't pay the market value of labor, they may not get any labor at all, so they have to pay what the market values. Or, if a corporation doesn't want premium talent, they won't pay premium salaries. If they want average talent, they'll pay average salaries. If they want sub-par talent, they'll pay sub-par salaries. Unions create a collective of employees who essentially all get paid the same, regardless of work ethic. Pay to a corporation is based on productivity. If you're more productive, they'll pay you more. If they want productivity out of their labor, they'll incentivize it through higher pay. Classic example, bonuses. If you reach certain productivity levels, the business will recognize that added value and pay for it. If they don't recognize that added value, they risk losing that productive worker because he/she is unhappy because he/she see's a schmuck who gets paid the same for not being as productive. If a business doesn't recognize productivity in terms of pay, they risk having a productively low workforce. It's market forces.

Unions don't create this environment. In fact, they create the contrary. They induce laziness, complacency, and reduced productivity. When everyone gets paid the same, there is no incentive to be more productive. Unions also create a poor and unsafe work environment, which is really counterproductive to why they were created in the first place. Unions don't easily allow, or don't allow period, businesses to fire unproductive or unsafe workers because they have to protect the worker from the big bad corporation. This is absurd. Unions also introduce higher costs to businesses.

If Ford and GM were non-union and a person really wanted to work at GM, but GM didn't pay as much as Ford, to him the value of working for GM over Ford is better than the increase in pay at Ford. But Ford hires top notch people since they pay more (attracting top tier talent). This gives Ford an advantage over GM, whether the higher pay is in engineering, production, what have you. But if those employees don't perform to Ford's standards, they lose their job. Their productivity and talent don't match the value of their pay. So, they go over to GM. Why? Because GM is willing to accept these people since they pay them less and doesn't have the premium talent. That's how the labor market and pay works.

Why do you think all of the Ivy League business school graduates go to Goldman Sachs and the likes instead of the local Edward Jones office with someone running it who graduated from community college? They pay them more. Edward Jones doesn't need Ivy League grads running their local offices, they can pay less to have someone with a lessor skill set do that.

A good size of business runs union-free and you don't hear those people complain, it's always the union shops that are complaining about pay. Why is that? Because unions don't allow market forces to take hold. Unions also create a sense of entitlement.

I'll stop there for now.

[stebo0728]

^^ No No please keep going you are doing great

[stebo0728]

An example. A local talk show host here often tells a story about a time in his life when he worked for the United States Postal Service. He worked as a mail sorter, and he did his job well. He was approached by a union official that urged that he not work as diligently because if their supervisors saw that they were capable of a larger performance, they would not allow overtime during peak seasons. This is a clear example of what I always say about unions, their goal is higher pay for less work. Smockers was doing a better job actually spelling this out, props

Now, lets not derail the topic at hand, the discussion is not meant to be one regarding rights and wrongs of unions, but whether it is ethical to deny the employees of a company access to a secret ballot to determine unionization. I have dubbed this bill the Unionization By Intimidation bill. Heres a breakdown of the typical unionization process.

*A group of lower work ethic employees (in otherwords lazy) decide that their company should have a union.
*Group then generates a petition, check yes or no card.
*Group members approach other employees of company, "would you like to sign this petition to become a union?" "Oh by the way, I like your red 94 honda accord in the parking lot, and your house out on baker street is pretty nice, and you have a great couple of kiddos, oh hey so are you sure you wouldnt like to sign our little petition"
*Feeling intimidated, objectioning employee decides to sign petition, realizing once its brought up for a vote, a secret ballot vote, he can just strike it back down there, no harm done by signing the petition, and said honda accord doesnt experience slashed tires and keyed doors, house on baker street keeps all its windows intact, and busseling youngsters still play together well at the park.
*Secret ballot vote comes around, union is voted down by rationally thinking majority of employees, end of story.

Removal of that last step would not be good for this country, or for this already fragile economy. Image Walmart unions, Jack-In-The-Box unions, 8-10 dollar cheeseburgers.

Similarly imagine if these black panther thugs had been able to know who didnt vote for the candidate they were intimidating the crowd to vote for.

[IBCoupe]

While both of your rants were interesting reads, I can't help but notice they didn't exactly respond to what I'd written.

Unions create more consistency in bargaining position when it comes to contract negotiations. One may argue (as Smockers has deftly done) that an employer has an interest in competing with the market when it comes to jobs, but that simply means that the employer has an incentive to be better than the other employers - there's no actual representation of the interests of the other half of the employee. Or, to put it more bluntly: the employer is put in a situation where his hope is to give only a slightly less s*** offer than his competitor would give.

A union creates an actual negotiator (with the interests of a party other than the employer) at the table and with substantial pull. Regardless of the faults a union might have, regardless of the incentive structures common union policies might install, this is an undeniable truth. There are two different approaches to negotiating a contract: the first is to negotiate with an eye towards cooperation and maximizing the net benefit for all. The second is to negotiate with an eye towards maximizing benefit for your client (or yourself).

It's possible that you would both agree with the second approach, but there are very few in the world who would agree with only that approach. Most adapt a blend to their contract negotiations, because not only does one have an interest in getting oneself a good deal, but there's also something to be said for not screwing over the guy you're signing a long-term contract with (and, maybe, would like to sign future contracts with). But, in the event that you both fall into that sliver of the population, I will concede that if you're only self-centered and see the negotiation as just a tool to get yourself a better situation that it's probably preferable to negotiate with someone who's in a significantly weaker position. But nothing about this has changed in the past thirty years, so either unions were always useless or they aren't now.

Smockers,
What definition of "collective" are you using? In corporate shareholders, I see a group of people that pool their resources to advance a common interest. This even carries over to contract negotiations: workers send their union representatives to advance their interests, and shareholders send corporate management to advance their interests.

[IBCoupe]

This is a clear example of what I always say about unions, their goal is higher pay for less work. Smockers was doing a better job actually spelling this out, props

It's worth noting that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, any more than pointing out that an employer's goal is lower pay for more work. Each side has a goal, and they necessarily conflict. That doesn't mean either side is wrong.

*A group of lower work ethic employees (in otherwords lazy) decide that their company should have a union.
*Group then generates a petition, check yes or no card.
*Group members approach other employees of company, "would you like to sign this petition to become a union?" "Oh by the way, I like your red 94 honda accord in the parking lot, and your house out on baker street is pretty nice, and you have a great couple of kiddos, oh hey so are you sure you wouldnt like to sign our little petition"
*Feeling intimidated, objectioning employee decides to sign petition, realizing once its brought up for a vote, a secret ballot vote, he can just strike it back down there, no harm done by signing the petition, and said honda accord doesnt experience slashed tires and keyed doors, house on baker street keeps all its windows intact, and busseling youngsters still play together well at the park.
*Secret ballot vote comes around, union is voted down by rationally thinking majority of employees, end of story.

Removal of that last step would not be good for this country, or for this already fragile economy. Image Walmart unions, Jack-In-The-Box unions, 8-10 dollar cheeseburgers.

Similarly imagine if these black panther thugs had been able to know who didnt vote for the candidate they were intimidating the crowd to vote for.

Demonization of unionizing workers aside, what would you reply to the advocate's position that a secret ballot creates a large window of time through which an employer opposing unionization can intimidate his or her workers?

[stebo0728]

This is a clear example of what I always say about unions, their goal is higher pay for less work. Smockers was doing a better job actually spelling this out, props

It's worth noting that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, any more than pointing out that an employer's goal is lower pay for more work. Each side has a goal, and they necessarily conflict. That doesn't mean either side is wrong.

My position is let the marketplace set the balance here, not unions.

*A group of lower work ethic employees (in otherwords lazy) decide that their company should have a union.
*Group then generates a petition, check yes or no card.
*Group members approach other employees of company, "would you like to sign this petition to become a union?" "Oh by the way, I like your red 94 honda accord in the parking lot, and your house out on baker street is pretty nice, and you have a great couple of kiddos, oh hey so are you sure you wouldnt like to sign our little petition"
*Feeling intimidated, objectioning employee decides to sign petition, realizing once its brought up for a vote, a secret ballot vote, he can just strike it back down there, no harm done by signing the petition, and said honda accord doesnt experience slashed tires and keyed doors, house on baker street keeps all its windows intact, and busseling youngsters still play together well at the park.
*Secret ballot vote comes around, union is voted down by rationally thinking majority of employees, end of story.

Removal of that last step would not be good for this country, or for this already fragile economy. Image Walmart unions, Jack-In-The-Box unions, 8-10 dollar cheeseburgers.

Similarly imagine if these black panther thugs had been able to know who didnt vote for the candidate they were intimidating the crowd to vote for.

Demonization of unionizing workers aside, what would you reply to the advocate's position that a secret ballot creates a large window of time through which an employer opposing unionization can intimidate his or her workers?

The very NATURE of a secret ballot prevents this. Sure the employer can say "if you succeed with this union im gonna fire every one of you" but then that is an empty threat, and the employees know this.

But again my purpose here is not necessarily to demonize unions but the demonize any notion that removal of a secret ballot would just be dandy.

[IBCoupe]

In what universe is a worker's union not part of the market? Your enemy is government regulations. Employee unions and the threat of a strike are absolutely a natural market trend and a market force to be reckoned with.

I think the intimidation, Stebo, that's talked about is summed up here:

The law today too heavily favors the employer. Management can force workers who have already indicated their desire to form a union to take an extra step and hold an election, which gives them time to harass, intimidate and even fire individuals seeking union representation. And the penalties for interfering with the union formation or contract negotiations are so insignificant they are laughable.

Goldstein also notes that the legislation still permits a worker to indicate that he or she would prefer to hold an election when they sign the card.