Will unions force more businesses to move over seas?

Question

In a time when unions are outraged with Democrats for their pro-immigration policies, big labor has launched an unprecedented lobbying campaign to force workers into unions. Labor unions are supposed to protect workers’ rights, yet union bosses want Congress to pass a law that actually robs workers of their democratic right to a private ballot.

In March, the House kowtowed to the unions and passed the so-called “Employer Free Choice Act.” Today the battle comes to the floor of the Senate. Union bosses will learn that the Senate isn’t going to roll over so easily.

I was a card-carrying member of the AFL-CIO Metal Lather union in my youth, and I understand the role that unions can play. But unionization is increasingly facing organizing challenges. Unions have seen a steady decline in membership, from 16.1 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2006. Right now they’re less interested in seriously defending workers’ rights than they are about simply holding onto their power. It seems obvious that big labor wants to rebuild its membership rolls — and its bank account — through a forced unionization process called “card check.”

What is card check and why is it so bad? The bill now before Congress would overturn a 72-year law that guarantees workers the right to cast private ballots in union organizing elections. Card check has always been an option, if employers voluntarily choose to recognize a union that way. But this bill mandates the recognition of a labor union as the exclusive employee representative if only 50 percent plus one of the workers signs a card expressing interest in a union. It’s automatic. No discussion, no hearing from both sides on the issue, no election.

What about the views of the other 49 percent? It’s very likely they would not even know an election is taking place. Union organizers only have to solicit cards in secret until they achieve a majority. That’s not a free and fair election. By voting in union-organizing elections, you are consulted about a decision that will require you to pay potentially thousands of dollars a year in union dues and may require you to support union actions, including strikes. Yet under this so-called “Employee Free Choice Act,” it is possible for nearly half of the workers to have no voice at all.

This isn’t about workers’ rights. This is about intimidation. Consider the pressure you would be under to sign a card if your coworkers asked. Workers and their families can be harassed at home, at church, at the shopping mall. A former union organizer testified before the House Education and Labor Committee that many workers “signed the card simply to get the organizer to leave their home and not harass them further.” Pressure often escalates to include threatening phone calls, vandalism, stalking, and even violence. In one 2004 case, a worker in High Point, North Carolina, who dared to oppose the United Auto Workers’ card check campaign, needed 24-hour security posted at his home.

The only protection workers have to exercise their freedom in union elections is the private ballot. A choice made under duress is no choice at all — it’s coercion.

A private ballot allows workers to make a decision without the union organizers, coworkers, or the employer looking over their shoulder. An employer wouldn’t know if you voted for the union, and the union wouldn’t know if you voted against the union.

Ironically, the bill’s supporters agree that secret ballot elections for unionization are a good thing — in Mexico! In August 2001, eleven cosponsors of the House card-check bill sent a letter to the Mexican government urging the adoption of secret-ballot elections as a basic right for Mexican workers for the very reasons we should protect this right here in America. Go figure.

Let’s be very clear that no one is denying the right of workers to organize unions. Unions, in fact, won more than half of the federally supervised organizing elections held in the last year. The right to join a union by secret ballot is time-honored. It is a right I exercised when I chose to be a card-carrying member.

But the right to decide by private ballot is fundamental in our democracy. Without it, union organizing is just legal conscription.

The Senate must stand up for American workers by defeating this bill.

Answer 1

Something needs to be done to stop employer intimidiation during the elections. This bill of course will not be law, but it's a good first shot across the bow of union-hostile employers, and it has scared the hell out of a lot of poeople that workers are going to get some rights back, that have slowly eroded under republican leadership, maybe not in this form, but it will happen. Arguing that republicans have protected the rights of workers to unionize is a losing argument.

Answer 2

I think you need to re-read this amendment to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). If you haven't actually read the bill; go read it -- don't be sheeple.

This is how it works Currently:
Step 1: A majority of workers can submit signed cards to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declaring that they want to be represented by a Union.
Step 2: The Employer can then demand a Secret Ballot vote.
Step 3: The Union is certified or not, depending on outcome of the vote.

This gives Employers more opportunity to fight organization.

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will change the current system by allowing certification based on Step 1. The NLRB will investigate whether or not it is a majority, if there are other unions involved, etc. Then, the NLRB will certify if it is truly a majority of workers wanting to organize. Which, by the way, is how every other industrialized country in the world does it.

Employers currently have the advantage. They control the information and can require employees to attend anti-union meetings during work hours. They can forbid organizers to use company property and time.

I've been through an organization drive. Here's what the Employer did: required attendance at anti-union gatherings during work hours; forbid any organizational information to be posted, emailed, or mailed; organizing meetings were not allowed on company property or company time. You could use your lunch break, but it had to be off property -- not even the parking lot. Supervisors often changed the lunch break times on the days when meetings were scheduled; they staggered the times so that very few people could attend the meetings. If you had a pro-union flier on your desk, it was grounds for dismissal. I was told to change my shirt or be terminated because it had the seal of my husband's Union on it -- a COMPLETELY different industry. There was nothing in the company policy about my shirt and it had NEVER been an issue until the organizing drive.

Currently, Union organization is restricted by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and companies have much less restriction or punishment for unfair labor practices during drives. The EFCA will place similar restrictions & penalties on companies that have been on Unions since the 40's -- evening up the scales. Supporters of EFCA say it will decrease Employer Intimidation; opponents say it will increase Organizer Intimidation. Opposition is also against the contract mediation and arbitration section of the bill.

The current Social/Political/Legal Environment of today is pretty anti-union. A majority of people assume that Unions are antiquated relics of the past; they have no idea how many thousands of workers depend on their Union for a decent working environment. We may have the laws (thanks to the Unions), but it's very naive to think companies don't bend & break laws all of the time. Labor Laws & OSHA regulations don't mean squat if there is no oversite of the company. One squeaky wheel is ignored, a Union is a chorus that is much harder to ignore.

Answer 3

I agree that any vote that effectively amounts to a show of hands is somewhat intimidating at best - and in some situations only succeeds in promoting division and anger among the workers. It certainly isn't a true indication of support or opposition represented by each person in the group.
However i don't agree that unions in general is the force behind companies witch relocate overseas or outsource their work. I think that force is referred to as greed.

Answer 4

Agreed. Absent union shops, many foreign manufacturers have set up shop in the States; if you buy a Toyota, it is more likely to have been made in the US than in Japan.

Answer 5

Havnt the Bush,es and Clintons already sent most of our work overseas?

Answer 6

unions have already destroyed the American auto industry and airlines. they will drive all jobs overseas unless stopped.

Answer 7

Yep, its the liberal way.

ECONOMIC POLICIES ESPOUSED BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY DO NOT WORK!!!!!

That is why they will lose again in 08, just like they did in 00 and 04...

Answer 8

yes they will