Why the anti-union animosity?

You're right that nobody gets pensions anymore - but that's a terrible thing, and a problem, not a 'fact of life.' It wasn't inevitable. This state came about because, with less and less unionization, the workers of America had no way to fight for them. You don't seem to have made the link between lower rates of unionization and higher rates of workers getting a worse and worse deal, all while profits for businesses continue to rise - to their highest rates ever, in fact. But the connection is clear.

I've never heard that claim before.

Cyclo wrote:

You're right that nobody gets pensions anymore - but that's a terrible thing, and a problem, not a 'fact of life.' It wasn't inevitable. This state came about because, with less and less unionization, the workers of America had no way to fight for them. You don't seem to have made the link between lower rates of unionization and higher rates of workers getting a worse and worse deal, all while profits for businesses continue to rise - to their highest rates ever, in fact. But the connection is clear.

Is there data here that shows lower rates of unionization? I haven't seen it.

I'll look at whatever data you have that shows that the advent of 401Ks over pensions is directly related to a lower rate of unionization. I've never heard that claim before.

Nine of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of public employees eligible for collective bargaining are in the South, according to data compiled by Barry Hirsch of Georgia State University and David Macpherson of Trinity University in San Antonio. Their research shows only about two in five public employees nationwide have the type of collective-bargaining rights that have drawn fire in Wisconsin.

To be sure, government jobs are still seen as more secure and desirable than most private-sector jobs even in states where public employees do not have the right to collective bargaining. In Mississippi, one of the poorest states in the nation, state workers have fewer protections and generally less-generous compensation and benefits than public employees represented by collective bargaining. While pay and perks vary greatly among states, the primary benefit is that governors and lawmakers cannot unilaterally impose changes, such as pension reforms, without going to the bargaining table, nor can they impose layoffs without following union-tenure rules.

In California, where most state employees are covered by collective bargaining, negotiated labor contracts allow state workers to retire, collect their pensions and then return to work, allowing them to make more money than before. Two independent government-auditing agencies in California have recommended reforming the state's pension system, even for current employees, but unions there have vowed to sue if the governor and Legislature try to enact reforms outside the bargaining process.

Governors and lawmakers in states without collective bargaining can make such changes without consulting workers. Pensions for new public employees in Virginia, for example, were shifted last year from the traditional defined benefit - the type of pension that many governments say they no longer can afford without major changes - to a 401(k)-style system similar to that used in the private sector. In North Carolina, some state workers are represented by a local of the Service Employees International Union, but the group has no bargaining power. That leaves employees with no real say over how many jobs would be shed this year due to budget cuts - Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue has recommended eliminating 10,000 state government jobs, 3,000 of them currently filled.

Businesses were fully onboard defined benefit pensions until the raiders came along in the eighties and were looking for a way to make more money by paying their workers less.

Union membership had been steadily declining in the US since 1983. In 2007, the labor department reported the first increase in union memberships in 25 years and the largest increase since 1979. Most of the recent gains in union membership have been in the service sector while the number of unionized employees in the manufacturing sector has declined. Most of the gains in the service sector have come in West Coast states like California where union membership is now at 16.7% compared with a national average of about 12.1%.[7]

Union density (the percentage of workers belonging to unions) has been declining since the late 1940s, however. Almost 36% of American workers were represented by unions in 1945. Historically, the rapid growth of public employee unions since the 1960s has served to mask an even more dramatic decline in private-sector union membership.

At the apex of union density in the 1940s, only about 9.8% of public employees were represented by unions, while 33.9% of private, non-agricultural workers had such representation. In this decade, those proportions have essentially reversed, with 36% of public workers being represented by unions while private sector union density had plummeted to around 7%. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent survey indicates that union membership in the US has risen to 12.4% of all workers, from 12.1% in 2007. For a short period, private sector union membership rebounded, increasing from 7.5% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2008. [8] However, that trend has since reversed. In 2009, the union density for private sector stood at 7.2%. [9]

Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code in 1978 by adding subsection (k) to §401 whereby employees are not taxed on income they choose to receive as deferred compensation rather than direct compensation.[3] The law went into effect on January 1, 1980,[3] and by 1983 almost half of large firms were either offering a 401(k) plan or considering doing so.[3] By 1984 there were 17,303 companies offering 401(k) plans.[3] Also in 1984, Congress passed legislation requiring nondiscrimination testing, to make sure that the plans did not discriminate in favor of highly paid employees more than a certain allowable amount.[3] Congress passed legislation in 1998 that allowed employers to have all employees contribute a certain amount into a 401(k) plan unless the employee expressly elects not to contribute.[3]

In the mid-1980s there were fewer than 8 million participants with less than $100 billion of assets in 401(k) plans.[4] By 2006 there were seventy million participants with more than $3 trillion of assets in 401(k) plans.[4] There were 438,000 companies sponsoring 401(k) plans in 2003.[3]

The section 401(k) plan, originally intended for executives, proved popular with workers at all levels because it had higher yearly contribution limits than the Individual Retirement Account (IRA), usually came with a company match, and in some ways provided greater flexibility than the IRA, often providing so-called loans and, if applicable, offered the employer's stock as an investment choice. Several major corporations amended existing defined contribution plans immediately following the publication of IRS proposed regulations in 1981.

A primary reason for the explosion of 401(k) plans is that such plans are cheaper for employers to maintain than a defined benefit pension for every retired worker. With a 401(k) plan, instead of required pension contributions, the employer only has to pay plan administration and support costs if they elect not to match employee contributions or make profit sharing contributions. In addition, some or all of the plan administration costs can be passed on to plan participants. In years with strong profits employers can make matching or profit-sharing contributions, and reduce or eliminate them in poor years. Thus 401(k) plans create a predictable cost for employers, while the cost of defined benefit plans can vary unpredictably from year to year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401%28k%29

Quote:

Businesses were fully onboard defined benefit pensions until the raiders came along in the eighties and were looking for a way to make more money by paying their workers less.

Uh, that's actually what I'm claiming happened.

Cycloptichorn

Uh, that's actually what I'm claiming happened.

It's true you did make a reference to not having researched this. For that I apoligize.

However this did not suggest it.

Quote:

Uh, that's actually what I'm claiming happened.

You are making far too much about the relatively trivial point that current law permits card check as long as the company that is the target of union organization doesn't object. They almost always do object, and a secret ballot which the unions usually lose is the result. The essential point was that the central effect of the proposed card check legislation would be to enable the union to evade existing requirements for secret ballots of the affected employees, and instead substitute cards that they can collect, usually with as much intimidation as they can get away with, from the stipulated fraction of the employees.

Unfortunately both you and parados persistently refused to address this central point, and instead devoted a great deal of energy to every distraction you could fnnd.

I will credit you with candor and a direct answer on one key point though. You truthfully (it appears) acknowledged that in your view the central public benefit of card check would be increased union success in organizing companies and industries. That at least acknowledges your willingness to force your preferred political choices on others, regardless of their individual choices.

It's clear that we have different opinions regarding who is the larger intimidator: unions or management. I don't see a lot acknowledgment from you that management does regularly attempt to intimidate their members from forming a Union. We could go back-and-forth with our OPINIONS as to which is a bigger problem all day, but I don't know how that would lead to a good conversation overall.

I think that you show some inflexibility by refusing to look at the situation through any other lens than the frame that you have chosen. Instead of actually examining the language of the bills in question, you've presented what amounts to a caricature of Union representation and interests on the matter.

When I say, 'Card Check changes the party who can call for a secret ballot from the Employer to the Employees,' that is addressing the central issue. That is what the bill does.

It's no different than any other political decision. Walker is proposing to force his political preferences on a huge group. Any politician does this and anyone who proposes new legislation is basically doing this. What you describe is merely a feature of democracy: there's always an 'injured party' in ever piece of legislation.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When I say, 'Card Check changes the party who can call for a secret ballot from the Employer to the Employees,' that is addressing the central issue. That is what the bill does.

What is "central" about who calls for a secret ballot?

You guys are merely evading the issue. A secret ballot of the workers involved is virtually the only way to ensure that intimidation is not a factor in the forced unionization of a private enterprise and the workers involved.

I happens also to involve the forced forfeiture of 1-2% of the pay of the workers involved to a private organization, and in the states without right to work laws, without the consent of the individual workers.

You fairly clearly favor card check because it promises to decrease the pattern of failure in union organizing efforts over the past forty years, and not because it improves the integrity of the organizing process in any way.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. A secret ballot doesn't stop intimidation by anyone at all. And it's mind-boggling that you actually believe this.

In a scenario in which the company learns of impending unionization, and then after calling for a secret ballot, rounds up the guys they think are in charge and intimidates them into both not voting and speaking about against it - by either threatening their jobs, their conditions, or threatening to close the whole shop - how does that ballot prevent intimidation?

The management doesn't give a **** how the individuals vote! The entire point is to use the time leading up to the vote to create a culture of intimidation and fear. And it works, by all accounts.

You guys are merely evading the issue. A secret ballot of the workers involved is virtually the only way to ensure that intimidation is not a factor in the forced unionization of a private enterprise and the workers involved

It appears that you value the application of your prejudgments about collective action over the rights of individuals.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. A secret ballot doesn't stop intimidation by anyone at all. And it's mind-boggling that you actually believe this.

In a scenario in which the company learns of impending unionization, and then after calling for a secret ballot, rounds up the guys they think are in charge and intimidates them into both not voting and speaking about against it - by either threatening their jobs, their conditions, or threatening to close the whole shop - how does that ballot prevent intimidation?

The management doesn't give a **** how the individuals vote! The entire point is to use the time leading up to the vote to create a culture of intimidation and fear. And it works, by all accounts.

It is even more mind-boggling that you appear to believe that being asked to sign a card in the workplace by a union organizer accompanied by workers favoring the union and hoping to get cushy company paid jobs as "shop stewards' doesn't involve intimidation.

Whatever information the company (or the union) may provide to influence the voters, in a secret ballot, the individual employee gets to express his view in private and without either of the contesting parties knowing his choice. What could be more protective of individual rights than that?

There is a pretty good case to be made for the productivity destroying effects of unionization and the job losses that have resulted from it in the textile, steel, automobile and other infected industries. It is only fair that the employees get a chance to hear it.

It appears that you value the application of your prejudgments about collective action over the rights of individuals.