Unions may suck, but something else sucks even more: the lust for maximizing short-term investor profits has ensured a race to the bottom for all by every business anywhere… even private entities which have to compete with publicly traded ones. Only the wealthy benefit to any degree and only in the short run, sitting on their duffs while waiting for occasional calls from their brokers.

Unions represented the only real check against the unbridled greed of the wealthy who have erringly killed their cash cow, the average consumer… thank union-buster Ronnie RayGun and the subsequent Republican Revolution for that.

The modern class of wealthy morons who inherited their family’s hard earned fortunes didn’t know a good when they had it, and now their lust for short-term profit has doomed us all.

Trying to re-unionize America now is far too little and far too late.

At least we should see some manufacturing return to our shores to take advantage of cheap labor in the United States… $2.00/hr will probably sound pretty damn good to many destitute Americans before long.

I don’t think unions suck; but otherwise I agree with JP. Multi-state corporations, particularly THE big box store, have wrung every last drop of profit out at the expense of breaking existing labor laws and paying minor fines.
In Quebec in 2005, WalMart closed a store when the meatcutters voted to organize. Because local stores had long since closed, the area was left with no source of goods and few sources of employment. Who did the local people blame? The meatcutters!

I think unions might have a place in our economy if the employeer required them to have “more skin in the game”. What if the employeer required that the union invest in the company? pay part of the healthcare insurance, training costs etc…it would make the companies stronger and the workers realize that they have a vested interest in the company doing well.

Head of the Economic Council at the White House, Christina Romer. Her views (along with her Economist Hubby) are 100% aligned with Bush’s economy.

Moreover, she has deep (very deep ties) to American Enterprise Institute.

Why can’t Obama find people like us, to shape the Economic Policy. Let’s get rid of these elite clowns whose primary job was to push down the cost of labor and transfer of wealth at the expense of ruining this beautiful country of ours.

These people are not our friends.

Timothy Geithner has to go. Ask the White House to fire Christina Romer. Henry Paulson (ultra quiet after Jan 20) to Jail.

Our friend is Elisabeth Warner, from Harvard.
She claims, and it is true…. Henry Paulson lied to the committees (under oath?) claiming that US Treasury was giving away the our money at “par” in exchange with preferred stocks. In fact, it was 68 cents to each dollar. This is fraud!!! That $55-60 Billion given away in one Conference Room at the Treasury is gone for good. It will never come back to us. This is outright Robbery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The one thing that few recognize in this discussion is that the worker/employee has only his/her labor (being, health, etc.) to bargain with and for. The average employee has no agent nor enforceable policy. The only way for an individual to have any leverage with respect to most employers is to join in union to assert some level of “floor” in the employer/employee relationship. It should be an acknowledged right that individuals have to form such unions in all employment circumstances. It does not have to be necessarily adversarial as the Chamber of Commerce and business-leaning conservatives predict. That really comes from a set of attitudes about labor, and not from any intrinsic characteristic of labor organized or disorganized.

I am an un-willing union worker for a michigan education program. the union needs less power. i am forced to pay union dues to a major american union and i have no better job protection, my pay is no higher, and my health insurance is poor. i truly feel that i am paying into the union just to keep them running and i have no choice about the matter.

i am a michigan democrat, who has generally supported union workers, but i feel abused by the union i am part of.

Business’ campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act is all lies. This bill doesn’t take away secret ballots, and saying it does over and over again doesn’t make it true. Unions have been in decline for years, commensurate with a decline in income for all workers, and it is well past time to level the field.

I don’t understand why the mere threat of a filibuster means a piece of legislation cannot pass. Why don’t the Democrats make the legislators who threaten to filibuster a piece of legislation make good on that threat? My understanding is that the rules around a filibuster make it a difficult thing to carry out, for good reason And the spectacle of the Republicans repeatedly holding up the work of the Senate might not win the public’s favor. So get some backbone, Dems!

Unions have won approximately 60% of all elections over the last decade (stats from the NLRB). The problem does not seem to be the anti-union campaigns that occur between the time that the cards are submitted and the election is held. There are just not as many elections being held. Are there fewer attempts to organize? Are younger workers just not interested in joining unions? What is the root cause? I have been researching this issue extensively and most of what I have read is nothing more than propoganda from the pro-labor side.

Besides, any number of clubs and civic organizations – local and national – hold hand votes (look at Congress, for heaven’s sake), votes of “yea” and “nay”, and so on. That the choice to say whether workers favor unionization or not should be subject only to “secret ballot” is ludicrous at best and a diversion at its heart.

If people want to see what good the unions do…look at the auto industry. At least $2500 per car go to union costs. I have seen the added costs to companies to deal with unions. The extra people to manage the payrolls and keep up with the deductions/additions for each union person.

Of course the unions can’t come on company property…..it is company property. Would you allow someone to come on your property to disrupt your live? I work for a non-union company and the unions still trespass. And the unions do attempt to intimate the workers, that’s why a secret ballot is necessary.

My grandmother was part of a union for 30 years. She knew in the 80’s that the unions time had past.

About fifteen years ago, when I went to work for Home Depot in Massachusetts, of all places, I was compelled to sign a statement agreeing that I would not join a union. That is as clear an example as one might wish to justify a card check arrangement.

Some questions: 1) what are the statistics regarding non-union companies which said unionization would cause them to move overseas, defeated the union vote, and then moved overseas anyway?

2) Was the meatpacking plant in the midwest which was exposed as having such horrendous conditions several months ago a union plant? If not, has the labor movement put together yet TV ads featuring this plant which can be used in the 2010 (and future) campaigns against anti-union senators?

3)Why can’t protections against intimidation from either side be built into new legislation?

The Employee Free Choice Act is NOT about a secret ballott. That’s a red herring being waved around by employers and groups like the Chamber. The choice ALREADY EXISTS to go with a traditional vote or majority sign up. The proble is that the choice is made by the employer, not the workers. All the EFCA does is give the workers the choice insted, hence the name **Employee** Free Choice Act. There is no prohibition against a traditional vote if the workers choose that. The viscious anti-organizing efforts by employers must be stopped!!

I am not an adamant supporter of unions, but it irks me that opponents of the “Card Check” legislation keep insisting that the new law would “disenfranchise” workers by taking away the secret ballot. This is a disgustingly dishonest argument. The legislation would simply allow workers to decide whether to use the card check option or the secret ballot. Workers are disenfranchised under current rules because the rules are tilted so far in favor of employers.

I worked at two newspapers where reporters were unionized. Each was an open shop, meaning I had the option to join or not join the union. The Newspaper Guild provided little help to its members, and I never believed my union dues would lead to a better pay check or working conditions. But in each case, I joined the union because management pressured me not to. That was dirty pool.

The right to organize is a fundamental freedom. If we don’t protect unions, then what will be the next unpopular group to go?

Pres. Reagan’s firing of the air controllers was a signal salvo against unionism. The irony that a man who once presided over the screen actors union failed to understand the useful function of unionism in creating a true middle class in America was lost on most people at the time and since. Since that time, the always uphill struggle to organize and establish a fairer employee/employer relationship became an even steeper climb.

All too many workers in America today think that unionizing will result in a “shower” of benefits. They often fail to understand that the benefits to work places and fields of work where unions noticeably exist are already better than conditions, pay, and benefits in those where they do not. The very fact that business is so staunchly in opposition to this bill should serve non-management as a sign that unions have much to offer workers.

This show makes the whole problem sound like Labor vs. management, or Labor vs. corporations.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!!!!

The real problem is investors making the sole goal of all companies “short-term investor profit.”

The investor’s short-term interests hurt not only Labor, but also work consistently against the long-term interest of business!!!

how about the right to not join a union. When I worked for a grocery store I was forced to join. Same goes for teachers.

Don’t forget why unions are getting a bad name, to many create lazy over priced workers. I deal with it daily. When I get a quote from a union subcontractor their prices are double those from a nonunion sub. Also there’s no accountability for quality. When doing public work I’m forced to use them. Then the public complains about budget overruns, yet no one points the fingers at unions. They need to own up to their share of the blame.

You cannot be forced to join a union. However, courts have consistently upheld that unions can charge a fee to non-members that work under union-bargained contracts. The amount of the fee is judged fair contribution to the costs the union undertakes to engage in bargaining. That is not the same as being forced to join; keep in mind that all persons covered by an agreement receive the same level of benefit.

Card check is a bad way to solve whatever problem may exist in union versus management power imbalance regarding organization. Both sides should have a reasonable opportunity to present their cases, followed by a secret ballot.

I know firsthand how coercive union members can be, having had my life threatened for working too hard in a union shop. The day after I set a shift productivity record at a steel warehouse, a co-worker told me that I should not ever do that again because, “This is a dangerous place to work. You never know when a crane load might slip when you are underneath.”

I also believe the stories about management intimidation of union organizers. Neither justifies the other. The whole argument misses the point, though.

Together, management and unions have presided over a tragic decline in US manufacturing prowess. There is blame enough on both sides. If card check gets things back to where unions restore the power they once held, we are not going to be better off unless unions and management change their adversarial way of (not) solving problems.

Who, besides unions, has lately urged a “living wage” for employees? Is it fair to any human being to offer a job at a wage that the employer well knows will not meet the basic needs of the worker? Is it right to spend 40 hours working and still need to go to another part- or full-time job to provide for one’s own and/or family needs? Because one can hire at a lower wage, does that make it right?

John P., when unions were at the height of their power in the U. S. the country had a productivity level and prosperity that was the undisputed envy of the world. It was not unions but excessive demands of shareholders and the response of business leaders that sought more profit by exploiting non-organized labor abroad. Wouldn’t things work more effectively if all workers worldwide had humane protections of governments and unions?

Sorry, I meant John M.

This segment makes the whole problem sound like Labor vs. management, or Labor vs. corporations.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!!!!

THE REAL PROBLEM IS INVESTORS MAKING THE SOLE GOAL OF ALL PUBLIC COMPANIES “SHORT-TERM INVESTOR PROFIT.”

The investor’s short-term interests hurt not only Labor, but also work consistently against the long-term interest of business!!!

People should keep their eyes on the ball, and not succumb to investor’s desire to stay above the fray by making the issue Labor VS. the Company!

Investors have only long-term interests. Traders have short-term interests. As an investor, I want management to make the best decisions in long-run. As an investor, I’m ok with unions if the higher costs can be passed on to the company’s customers.

Now as a manager, I’ve got problems with unions. First, they make my costs higher, so I have to raise my prices to maintain the same level of profitability so I can continue to invest in my business. Secondly, unions reduce my flexibility. For example, when I want to reduce my workforce because of business conditions; if I can do it, it’s based on seniority not merit. So even though the business for plant B is in decline I may have to fire a guy working in plant A and replace him with someone doing something completely different in plant B because the B guy is more senior. I have to train the B guy to do the A job. Then when the business improves and I’m ready to hire at plant B, the B guy who’s now at the A plant has to get first dibs. Now I’ve got to hire a new guy for A and train him. Does this make sense?

In conclusion, more unions means we all pay.

Senator Mitch McConnell’s comments about the sacred nature of the secret ballot imply that only secret ballots are truly aligned with the intent of the Founders. But union membership is completely different from assuming a political leadership position! Unions are not mentioned in the Constitution.

McConnell says that only secret ballots can be fair, in every setting. But are the votes he and his fellow Senators cast in Congress secret? I’ve seen them published in the newspaper! I assume this too is un-American.

Wrong!

Investors have unreasonable expectations of high comps from quarter to quarter no matter what the external circumstances.

This pressure at increasing earnings every quarter no matter what is unreasonable, and too often labor is the easiest way to boost a quarter which falls short.

The largest investors in a company often sit on the Board of Directors, and excercise their own interests at the expense of all other interests.

GM, for instance, pig-headedly made only the guzzlers that would boost immediate sales, disregarding completely the future consequences for the company. This is due to unreasonable pressure to boost earnings at any cost for current investors who demand immediate return. Sure, unions have made profitability difficult for auto makers, but stubborn adherence to immediate profits for investors is what sunk GM in the long haul. They completely disregarded what was in the company’s long-term interests.
If this example does not satisfy you, look to any other publicly traded company anywhere for myriad similar examples.

SHORT-TERM INVESTOR INTERESTS HAVE BECOME THE PRIMARY DRIVING INTEREST OF BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHER FACTORS!

THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM AILING THE CORPORATE WORLD.

A real balance needs to be found beween the needs of labor, business, investors, and clients. The corporate world once had that balance, but lost it.
I believe the yuppie movement of “greed is good,” combined with Reagan and the Republican Revolution, is what spurred the investor class ravenously down the wrong road… we need to find our way back.

You obviously don’t work for a public corporation or own shares in one because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Moreover, private corporations employ more people and contribute more to the economy than public ones.

I work for a public corporation and my 401(k) plan is heavily invested in that corporation, as are many of my colleagues. I am both employee and shareholder and my interests are aligned and long-term.

Whatever.

Sounds like you really know what you’re taliking about with your 401k invested heavily in one company… especially in this economic environment.

BTW, don’t you think private corps have to compete with publicly traded ones?

Diego: I agree that the unions are not the sole problem, but they are complicit. Auto makers, steel producers, and others failed to adapt to market conditions and figured that the policies that had been so lucrative in the 50’s and 60’s would continue forever. That is why they negotiated bloated agreements and work rules without regard to global competitiveness.

I said negotiated – BOTH sides agreed. Shared lack of vision. Shared mis-perception that the “other side” was the enemy. Shared myopia about how cooperation could foster improvements.

Ultimately, the corporations bear the main responsibility for the demise of the manufacturing industry. I also worked on the corporate side of things, and witnessed shockingly incompetent decisions made in the name of quarterly profits or personal bonuses; companies completely out of touch with consumers of their products; colossal arrogance mixed with petty infighting.

I am not anti-union. Labor deserves to be represented in collective bargaining if that is in their best interest. The workers also deserve the fair chance to reject a union if they don’t want one – without being bullied either by management or other workers.

The objective of business and labor should be sustainable wealth building for all parties. Honda and other non-union companies have done a great job of being competitive and profitable while fairly compensating workers and treating them right. Kaiser Permanente has been very successful at working with the SEUI union to provide world-class healthcare services.

Let’s make sure that any changes in law don’t make the problem worse – or shift the focus from improving corporate/labor relationships so they make sense in fair sharing of risks AND rewards for all.

Yes, of course they compete, and if pubic ones are so short-term oriented which hampers their efficiency and competitiveness, they be getting their hats handed to them by private ones. If they didn’t respond by correcting the problem then too bad for them. In the end, the better corporation wins.

Thanks for confirming my original thought.

My final words on this subject, I promise. “Washington Post” today has an excellent editorial by Meyerson: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103218.html. Definitely worth a read and a thought.

I’m not sure what to think about this. On the one hand my personal experience with a union was the restaurant union in NYC in the 80’s and all I can say is they were run by thugs. I was not in the union and I was working part time to get me through school. I was consistently harassed and intimidated and yet I was not working enough hours to be considered full time. I had no choice about the money being taken out for union fees. I did not want to join as the dues were full time and I was not wanting to work full time nor could I due to school. I left the job after a few months after being threatened with violence. Management played mt as well, they kept hiring students like myself to make some kind of point to the full time waiters.

However I still think that workers not be able to organize is not a good thing. So if the unions can be clean and straight up I have no problem. I think the days of the mob being involved with unions is over as well, and in the 80’s they were knee deep in the union I was talking about.

Whoops . . . thanks, John, for your thoughtful comments and reflections.

I have just one thing to say to Mr. Law and people like him. Come hell or high water, I will be starting up a business of my own before I “check out.” It will be a business based on software that I, myself, have written now that I’ve retired from my day job as a software engineer. Sure, “software engineer” sounds pretty good, but let me clue you in on something. I’ve been a working stiff all my life. Others have picked my brain and used my skills simply because I’ve allowed them to do so. I took what was to be a steady and smooth road toward a decent living by making money for others–the way I will now begin doing for myself. None of my former employers–save one, perhaps–cared one whit whether or not my salary reflected either the earnings or the ongoing success of the company. I never worked union, but I sure as hell do support them.

So here’s the deal. You talk as though it never occurred to you that us working stiffs could actually become business owners. Or that throughout our working-stiff lives we just might have gotten a belly full of you “Chamber of Commerce” types who have never thought to turn the bread over and see if it’s buttered on the other side as well. I can tell you with conviction that *this* future business owner has been driven thoroughly and completely out of your camp. I totally reject your brand of business ethics–an ethic that with each passing decade loses more and more of its credibility, to wit, the failure of capital markets to regulate themselves. There is only one reason why those on “your side” will not stop trying to pull this dead horse over the finish line–because you’re so deathly afraid of one day being forced to become a working stiff like me. Well in spite of what you’ve been told, it hasn’t been that bad. That’s not to put down being good, either, at least not as I see good. Good is being able to say I’ve lived ethically and I’ve been straight with others all my life. You, Mr. Law, seem not to be bothered at all with working on the fringes of ethical behavior. You know full well that the business policies you’ve been living with–working for and idealized through business school proselytization for most of your life–is a lie … a fake … fakery, and yet you simply plow ahead.

You’ve had your day Mr. Law. There’s been a change in the wind. I suggest you wet your finger and stick it up in the air.

Mitch McConnell and the republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. Their whole ideology is against the worker and a fair living wage. Which is what is the real issue across the board. Union or not the fact that the majority of people in this country have seen their wages drop in the past 30 years is the issue. Unions on the other hand need to be more flexible and I would suggest a sliding scale for part time workers. Most of them, such as the College teachers union in Massachusetts, which deducts fees from adjuncts without giving them any benefits. So the adjuncts and CE instructors are paying into the full time benefits without getting any.

I wonder why the job market is shifting out of the USA??
Thank your local union!!!

I wonder why the job market is shifting out of the USA??
Thank your local union!!!

Complete nonsense, it’s about the bottom line, period.

You know if corporate America keeps moving jobs overseas and lowering wages who will buy the products that are being made?

Good living wages are good for everyone.

Jeffe,

That’s right and the “bottom line” is all about investor expectations.

That’s why the real problem is that short-term investor profit has become the primary interest of business, at the expense of all other factors.

This is random, but where is Jack Beady?!! Tom, if you read this, you need to bring him back on. The last few shows would have benefited greatly by having his voice on there.

It seems obvious to me that Steven Laws position on this is completely disingenous. It’s shameful to act is if you care about protecting employees when you know perfectly well your opposition to this bill is all about the bottom line for the business interests you represent. It is exactly this kind of duplicity that has become the hallmark of the Republican “cause” and is the reason that honest Americans are abondoning it in droves. Have to courage to say whey you’re really against something, and don’t imagine that because no one in the gutless media is calling you on your falicitous talking points that the rest of the public doesn’t see straight through you.

Why not keep the secret ballot and get rid of the waiting period? That seems to be a fair compromise.

Simply signing a card is too easy for employees to organize. There are credible stories of union organizers holding organizing meetings instructing workers to sign a card when they get there as though it were a registration; only for them to discover later that they have signed on with the union for the rest of their working life.

Wouldn’t it make sense if a supervised election were required whenever fewer than 80% of the potential bargaining unit has signed the card? That would filter out the frivolous enrollments but would allow workers to organize companies who really deserve a union in their shop.

Sen. Mitch McConnel of KY. spoke against this bill while representing a state where more hardships have been endured consistantly at the hands of Federal Marshalls engaged at the request of the coal industry to break up strikes.

The history of big business VS union movement is not part of what goes into our history books. It is not written by those who unionized. It’s been a war. Wartime history is written by the ‘victors’. Likewise now. The fact that you, Mr. Ashbrook, take on this issue over the airwaves clearly is a bold step. You’ve mentioned that this is the biggest lobbying movement ever mobilized against a bill. Proof of how desperate this issue is may be analyzed in light of how much or little ‘air play’ it get in other media.

in response to Ann about the $2500 that gets added to the cost of a car because of the union you can not seriously think that the cost would go down by $2500 if the unions were dismissed. it would just mean more profit for the CEO’s and all the other heads of the company, keep in mind that you do not pay any less for a car or truck made in Mexico NON-UNION

I listened to your program tonight and it was so one sided to the union view it was hardly a discussion of the issue. I’m not even sure what the difference would be. And your guest refering to President Reagan for the union’s decline was so misplaced. President Clinton’s fast track on NAFTA and the WTO opened the doors to union job loses in this country more than anything else. It made it possible for $1 / hour workers to complete with $20 / hour American workers. All we need now is cap and trade to increase energy rates 25% and unions demanding this and that to end this economy and this country forever. Everyone has an agenda and little common sense. Even NPR.

This debate sounds like who is going to win the right to harass workers most effectively. The sad thing is that both sides are often motivated by greed vs. protecting the right of the worker to earn a proper living AND the company to make a decent profit. Their interdependence for success is rarely acknowledged. Instead of berating the “other side,” I want to hear each acknowledging the strengths of the other’s position.

It seems so logical to look for ways to protect workers from coercion by either side. Why not change the law that is allowing more coercion opportunity for the company to provide for education from both sides. Define coercion and attach penalties. I want to hear conversation for a 3rd way.

Anyone hear what Jon Stewart had to say to Jim Kramer tonight on The DailyShow?

It was a pretty amazing condemnation of how Wallstreet has screwed America by its single-minded emphasis on short-term investor profits.

Sound familiar?

I tuned into your program just in time to hear the “non-union electrical worker” caller. What utter tripe. His story was such stereotypical anti-union B.S. I seriously doubt he was an electrician.

I am a union electrician. I make about $35 an hour and “compete” against people like him that, in my market, make about $18 an hour. Or more precisely, he is employed by people that pay him an average of $18 an hour.

I can’t compete against him by being the “lazy union worker” carrying one stick of conduit, I WORK MY ASS OFF. If my employer is not PROFITABLE, sooner or later I will not have a job.

If I run my union shop out of business, I will not have my good wage, I will not have my health insurance, I will not have my retirement, and eventually I will be stuck working for a non-union shop.

The solution is NOT to kill off my “competition”. The electrical field (not to mention the construction field in general) is already hazardous enough, and that danger is one of the driving forces behind being unionized. UNIONS are for the WORKER; but not every worker understands this concept.

Oh, and the comment about retirements being better managed on the non-union side; union retirements are subject to government audits, most non-union electricians DON’T HAVE A RETIREMENT!

The weekend talk shows will likely be excerpting Jon Stewart’s one-on-one with Kramer again and again.

It was both substantial and amazing to hear coming from any source on the boob-tube.

No doubt, someone will even refer to it tomorrow on On Point’s Week In The News… look for it.

I’ve been listening for the past year and a few months ago complained on the website about the website broadcasts not being up by 3pm as promised — well they have been up before 3pm for the past few months and that is awesome.

About this broadcast I wished I could see a better reconciliation of what I’ve seen on the (extremely liberal) Rachel Maddow Show’s support for this bill and the Republican’s vehement opposition. Republicans are saying the bill will abolish the secret ballot .. the bill will absolultely NOT abolish the secret ballot, but the secret ballot is not working — the conversation TRIED to get to the heart of the matter but never did. I wish it did. Maybe the guest just weren’t willing to stray from their talking points enough, to do it.

The commentators keeping say “EFCA will make it easier for EMPLOYEES to form a union”. That description is WAY OFF THE MARK. It will make employees more velnerable to union bullying, pressure and misinformation so the professional paid organizers can force them into the Union without a full and open debate and a right to decide by secret ballot.

The Unions like to promote the idea that unionizing a workplace is done by the employees. It is done by paid organizers visiting homes, promising the world, and intimidation. That is what EFCA will make easier.

It,s very simple to see throught the chambers veiw on EFCA .The EFCA DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE SECRET BALLOT BUT RATHER GIVES THE WORKERS THE CHOICE.To have a secret ballot or a card check. During the last adminestration most organizers opted not to have elections due to the anti labor nlrb because if you had enough cards signed to have an election most compaies hired union busters that are very efficent at harasment, lies, threats if you vote to go union we will close the shop was one of thier favorite ones and always said by by one of employees they had bought of. THATS RIGHT BECAUSE the union buster tought them how to.All most workers want is a livable wage with health care and a pension not a 401k owned by the company they work for.Yes jobs are sifting out of the USA BECAUSE OF FREE TRADE (not fare trade)and by the way wasn’t it Newt & Bob that pushed NAFTA THROUGHT CONGRESS. And yes Clinton did sign it what a mistake. and by the way all those name brands that are now being made over sea’s at a drastic lower labor cost hs went down I don’t think so we have just plane and simple lost jobs.The winds have changed let’s give the blue collar workers a chance to form and join a union.We need EFCA NOW

The extended Jon Stewart interview is available here, and is well worth watching:

SHORT-TERM INVESTOR PROFIT HAS BECOME THE PRIMARY DRIVING INTEREST OF BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHER FACTORS!

THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM AILING THE CORPORATE WORLD.

Here’s the link, watch it!

http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/

The extended Jon Stewart interview is available here, and is well worth watching!

I reiterate my point from above, and Jon Stewart will back me up:

SHORT-TERM INVESTOR PROFIT HAS BECOME THE PRIMARY DRIVING INTEREST OF BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE OF ALL OTHER FACTORS!

THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM AILING THE CORPORATE WORLD.

Here’s the link, watch it!

http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/

The fact of the matter is that even if unions had won every single organizing drive that they’ve mounted since 1980, union membership would still have declined due to job losses in heavily unionized sectors of the economy.

Even in the absence of foreign competition, improvements in technology alone would render companies shackled by rigid union work arrangements uncompetitive relative to their non-union competitors, who would ultimately drive them out of business by offering a superior product at a lower price. Unless unions were able to persuade congress to outlaw innovations that increase efficiency and productivity, that is. The only way to preserve unions and pay their members above market wages is to enact legislation that eliminates competition and forces consumers to pay inflated prices for the goods that they produce. As the examples of the steel industry, Detroit, and many others show all too well, this is ultimately a lose-lose proposition for consumers, employers, and workers. No thanks.

I strongly support everyone’s right to pay above market prices if they wish to do so. Hell – if you like the way the guy down the street runs his gas station and want to pay him an extra $3 a gallon to improve his standard of living – have at it. Try to use the legislature to rig the market so that everyone has no choice but to buy their gas from this guy and pay an extra $3 a gallon and you can expect a fight.

Jon Stewart is a hasbeen comedian; I can’t believe your whole case rests on his “informed” opinion.

Using all caps only adds to your joke of a point of view. Now there’s something even Jon could get some material out of.

I recently tried to form a union on a small railroad and it failed because of the secret ballot and the two week waiting period. We had 18 eligible votes and I had collected 15 a-cards. The company used the secret ballot and the two week waiting period to defeat the union by telling lies and threatening employees to fire them if they voted for it. They also told them they would be getting a substantial raise in the near future. The company told them they would always have health insurance so they did not a union to keep their insurance. The employees got a raise. After waiting three years they got a 3% raise and the company took their health insurance away from them soon afterward. This is what can happen when the companies are allowed to decide whether or not there is a secret ballot. Support the Employee Free Choice Act!!!

I must admit that I am a bit baffled by a few of the routine comments in opposition to card check made by the Chamber of Commerce official on this program and even others, such as former Democratic Senator George McGovern. Whether one agrees or disagrees with card check, one analogy in particular should be mystifying to anyone with an elementary understanding of the politics of unionizing.

The primary objection to card check was framed something like this: Because card check can go from petition straight to unionization, it will threaten the right of workers to cast “secret ballots” in deciding whether or not to unionize, thus undermining a core democratic spirit of the unionization process.
The primary assumption of the argument is that the presence of a secret ballot means that the process is itself democratic. With this line of argument, the EFCA opponents are already running into troubles. If that is indeed the case (i.e. secret ballots = democracy), we have just added Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Iran, Afghanistan, and many others to our list of democratic countries. In most of these cases, the secret ballot is a regularized election practice. Yet, given the periodic jailing and disenfranchisement of those that dissent against the “powers that be,” I would hardly consider any of them to have free and fair elections.
So, if democratic elections are more than a secret ballot, how close does the current law live up a more expansive definition of democracy? In gauging this, it might be helpful to draw a few loose analogies from the dictatorial practices listed above.

First, let’s equate the place of work to a country and the managers as the “powers that be.”

Secondly, let’s equate any evidence of harassment prior to the secret ballot as analogous to dictators harassing oppositionists.

Thirdly, let’s equate the monopolization of the media by a political regime as similar to a monopolization of the campaign environment in the lead-up to the secret ballot election.

Finally, let’s equate any evidence of firing those that advocate a “yes” vote to unionize as similar to these regimes disenfranchising would be opposition supporters.

Since I’ve already established that countries which practice such things are not democratic, then it is only fair to say that similar practices in the workplace can also not be democratic.

The evidence suggests quite convincingly that the process which accompanies the vote on whether or not to unionize would make Robert Mugabe proud. A widely cited paper published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (http://www.cepr.net/) found that illegal firings occurred in one fourth of all union representation elections in the 2000s. This rate was around 16 percent during the 1990s. A House of Representative report cites that number to be around 1 percent in the 1970s. The Center’s senior economist, John Schmitt, cites that “Aggressive actions by employers — often including illegal firings — have significantly undermined the ability of U.S. workers to unionize their workplaces,” Separate data from the AFL-CIO supports the CEPR’s research.

The pre-election campaign environments remind me of the election campaigns dominated by the political regimes that I’ve spent quite a few years studying. Business managers have a near exclusive monopoly on the dissemination of information and rallying in the weeks leading up to the secret ballot. Wal-mart has been widely known to use this tactic to scare workers away from unionizing. At the same time, Union activists have almost no ability to engage in dissemination campaigns.

So, in light of this evidence, what is the meaning behind all of the talk about the proposed card check as a threat to the democratic rights of the workers? Democracy is more than just an election. It encompasses a process of debate free from harassment and intimidation. It seems to me that card check might actually go a long way toward improving the effective rights of workers to a democratic election.

I think card check is a wonderful idea! In fact, I propose we conduct all of our elections that way! Let’s say that, since less than half of eligible adults vote every election, and since you technically don’t need a majority of the popular vote to be elected president in this country, we institute a policy in which President Obama is re-elected provided that, say, 25% of American adults sign some card (they could do it online, too) saying that they want to re-elect him? (And this new policy would mean that term limits would be a thing of the past.) Campaigns end up being long and expensive processes, anyways, in which Republicans inevitably try to frighten voters. So why not just have a referendum on the incumbent?!