The War on Labor Unions is a War on All of Us

Um, you clearly are, whether you want to admit it or not.



I guess that answers my question pretty well: you aren't even willing to admit ANY amount of employer intimidation goes on, even though it is clearly acknowledged by those who study this issue that it regularly does.

Look, everyone here knows that you are the consummate shill for the 'management' position, George. Nobody expects you to be balanced; in every discussion of this type, you reflexively bash unions and blame workers for their own problems, all while constantly defending any and all actions taken by the management of companies. Usually followed by mutterings about Communism or Stalin or something. But you could try a little harder than this.

Cycloptichorn

I'm not the one here making banal and meaningless assertions about "what everyone knows" - that's you.

I never denied that the potential or fact of employer intimidation exists. Instead I noted that a secret ballot is the traditional method we use to minimize the effects of potential intimidation and permit people to voice their preferences freely and without fear. It is the unions and their paid legislative supporters who advocate limiting secret ballots, not the employers. What does that tell you?

There is the potential for what could be called unstated intimidation by employers, in that they can always shut down their operations or do a lockout of the employees. However, that is merely the other side of a strike, which is the normal union tactic. During organizing efforts in new industries, both sides do what they can to get the outcome they desire. However only one side in this dispute is advocating the end of secret ballots. Again, what does that tell you????

You have not dealt with the obvious fact that private sector unions are rapidly disappearing, and that union organizing efforts (in secret ballots, supervised by the government) have become increasingly unsuccessful over the past several decades. Do you ascribe all of that (or even a major portion of it) to employer intimidation? How does that "intimidation" reach into the secret voting process?

Do you deny that unions have become less sought after or favored by employees in contemporary industries?

It is an observable fact that unions exist only where they enjoy legally enforcable monopolies on employment and forced collection of dues. Wherever employees are able to make individual choices, unions die.

We may not know what motivates each and every one of them, but we can make a pretty good guess.


Well, that's rather like saying that, after private ownership of machine guns was outlawed, very few people sought to buy machine guns, so clearly there was never a market for them in the first place. Of course there's very little opportunity to free ride in "right to work" states -- that's because unionization efforts are stymied by the free ridership problem. But then that's the whole point of those laws. They're not "right to work" laws, they're "right to freeload" laws.


That's true. We just disagree on whether that's a good thing or not.


Or management attempts to thwart unionization efforts coupled with inconsistent and largely ineffective government enforcement of the labor laws.


That's funny, I have no doubt at all what makes you so certain.

Your machine gun analogy is seriously defective. Right to Work laws don't prevent or inhibit the unionization of companies in any way. Ineed they arguably make unionization easier by lowering the stakes for those workers who don't want a union - they can always choose to opt out, and don't need to oppose the effort just to protect their personal preferences on the matter.

The obvious fact is that, if the union can't get its hands on all the employee dues revenues, and forced dues collection without recourse, it loses interest in the whole effort. Unions aren't willing to earn the sustained loyalty of their members, or even the continued belief among employees that they are getting their money's worth for the dues collected - instead they insist on legally sanctioned monopolies on employment, and forced collection of dues. Looks like a monopolistic profit motive to me.

Companies, on the other hand, can lose the loyalty and trade of their customers at any time. Such monopolistic actions on their part are prohibited by law.



Please enlighten me. I believe I am motivated by the experience of running companies with large union memberships; the attendant difficultiues in creating any sense of common purpose among employees created by a parasitic organization whose self-interest is in creating discord and making itself appear as the sole agent of employee welfare; the constant quibbling about what this or that category of workers can do or cannot do and the rigidity that entails; and long-term direct observation of the behavior of local and national union officers.

What is your theory?

The fact that you didn't understand my analogy doesn't mean it's defective.


I'm not sure if this is a joke or if you are so delusional that you actually believe this. I'm leaning toward the former.


Are you suggesting that, if a union can't impose a closed shop, it has no interest in organizing?



See below:

I don't know that is the case. However the behavior of unions and their general avoidance of organizing efforts in right to work states certainly appears to sduggest this might be the case.

Do you have an alternative theory?

Apparently you do acknowledge that my positions are based on knowledge and direct experience in these matters. That did not appear to be your original implication.

Well, given the fact that the Taft-Hartley Act eliminated the closed shop back in 1947, I'd say there has to be an alternative theory. Wouldn't you agree?


I have no doubt that your position toward unions is shaped by personal experience. Of course, that doesn't make your position any more accurate or informed or even intelligent. It just makes it personal.

No I would not agree. The practical difference between a closed shop and enforced union membership in a "union shop" is practically nil, and I think you must surely know that. The collective bargaining agreements I dealt with required union membership by the first payday. The alternative was losing your job.. That indeed is the universal norm. The applications vary from union group to group - the building trades & laborers unions permitted flexible mobilization and demobilization from a union hiring hall; while the metals trades insisted on long-term employment, but all demanded union membership as a condition of continued employment. They all stoutly resisted any attempt to demand or get a recertification of the union by vote of the workers. You are merely creating a distraction from the obvious central point. A lawyerly trick, but ineffective.

Besides I didn't ever use the phrase "union shop": instead I referred to compulsory membership and forced collection of dues by prededuction from pay. These are indeed precisely the case in labor agreements nationwide, except only in Right to Work states , and unions hardly exist there. You are making a distinction without a difference.



Agreed. But it does make it informed and based on fact. How one interprets those facts in indeed a personal matter. What experiences are the factual basis for your personal interpretations?

I worked for a union shop for 42 years and can testify to the fact that if not for the union, I personally know of at least 5 good workers that would have been fired because they werent liked by their supervisors. These men were excellent workers who were able to do their jobs without supervision and no I wasent one of the 5.

No, I don't know that, largely because that's not true.


What you're describing is an unfair labor practice which is illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act. Why didn't you file a complaint with the NLRB?


What you are describing is either manifestly illegal or a fantasy.


No, I just asked if you were suggesting that unions wouldn't organize if they couldn't count on having a closed shop, knowing full well that closed shops are illegal. I just wanted to find out if you knew they were illegal. Evidently, you didn't. And apparently you still don't.


I actually have had some experience working with a law firm that was well-known in the labor world as a "union-buster." Indeed, the lawyers in the firm were proud of that reputation. But I don't need first-hand experience in the business world to know what the law is or how "right to work" laws are designed to stifle unions by setting up a free rider situation. All one needs is some common sense for that.

I personally had a lot of experience working in a sheet metal workers union back during summers in college. We had a lot of guys who worked hard and did quality work. The union provided us with training opportunities at very little cost, and for many of the members of the workforce, represented the only way for these (not-so-educated) guys to better their life situation.

The Union also went to bat for you if you got hurt on the job. The contractor I worked for was a stand-up guy who never gave anyone who was legitimately hurt a hard time; but I saw other guys, who worked for other companies, who had a very different experience. If it weren't for union lawyers many of these people would have been screwed b/c of an accident.

I would submit that in many businesses, the missing sense of shared purpose stems in large part from the fact that the profits of the enterprise are in no way equally shared; that they - like I have - see many people at the upper levels who are well-connected but not really hard-working or productive. Who year after year earn handsome salaries while those who work for them do all the hard work. Workers who see no rise in their compensation, while management gets large bonuses or increases in their pay, will not have a shared sense of purpose. This isn't a fault of a union but instead of the inherent structure of the enterprise.

Unions, by their very nature, posit a situation in which control is not held only by the Rentier, by the holder of capital, but instead more equally by all those who are involved in an enterprise. This position will always be intolerable to those who naturally see themselves as superior to their fellow man, and who believe that gigantically unequal economic compensation is only their due, and nothing more.

Cycloptichorn

Not in Continental-Europe, where countries have strong unions.

Which brings me to a more general point: The amount of benefits unions can deliver to workers depends on a country's labor laws, which in turn depend on a country's politics. So when you say people realized that there's no use in joining a union, that's only half the story.

Free-riding is an extremely well-understood phenomenon. It's pretty much universal among humans. Every economics-101 textbook can enlighten you about it.

Go get him. I believe that he is backing down a bit.

I noticed today that Mitt Romney, during one of his attacks on President Obama, used the term "Union Bosses" as evil abusers of the workers. This has always been an attempt to teach workers to fear unions so that the business owners can continue to get rich from the worker's labor.

JoeFromChicago wrote: "I actually have had some experience working with a law firm that was well-known in the labor world as a "union-buster." Indeed, the lawyers in the firm were proud of that reputation. But I don't need first-hand experience in the business world to know what the law is or how "right to work" laws are designed to stifle unions by setting up a free rider situation. All one needs is some common sense for that."

These "union busters" along with the Republican actions to weaken the laws ability of the U.S. Department of Labor to protect workers were powerful in their determination to destroy unions and to keep their workers controlled as cheap as possible.

The United Farm Workers of America (UFWA) (Spanish: Unión de Campesinos) is a labor union created from the merging of two groups, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) led by Filipino organizer Larry Itliong, and the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) led by César Chávez. This union changed from a workers' rights organization that helped workers get unemployment insurance to that of a union of farmworkers almost overnight.

I worked very hard driving from the Bay Area to to Delano every month to collect and provide food and and medical help to support the protection of the farm workers when when the NFWA went out on strike in support of the mostly Filipino farmworkers of the AWOC in Delano, California who had previously initiated a grape strike on September 8, 1965. The NFWA and the AWOC, recognizing their common goals and methods, and realizing the strengths of coalition formation, jointly formed the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee on August 22, 1966. This organization eventually became the United Farm Workers and launched a boycott of table grapes and, after five years of struggle, finally won a contract with the major grape growers in California. My small children always called grapes "the boycotts" when they saw them in the grocery stores, but they never tasted grapes until the boycott ended with success.

I also was successful in organizing unions for working women to improve their rights and better wages that had always been lacking. It improved their lives and the lives of their families.

The Republicans radical right continue more than ever to try to destroy unions and weaken the Labor Department. They can go to hell!!! BBB


The following is what the Labor Department laws protect the rights of workers:

Summary of the Major Laws of the Department of Labor

Wages & Hours
Workplace Safety & Health
Workers' Compensation
Employee Benefits
Unions & Their Members
Employee Protection
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Garnishment of Wages
The Family and Medical Leave Act
Veterans' Preference
Government Contracts, Grants, or Financial Aid
Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Mine Safety & Health
Construction
Transportation
Plant Closings & Layoffs
Advisories

The Department of Labor (DOL) administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws. These mandates and the regulations that implement them cover many workplace activities for about 10 million employers and 125 million workers.

Following is a brief description of many of DOL's principal statutes most commonly applicable to businesses, job seekers, workers, retirees, contractors and grantees. This brief summary is intended to acquaint you with the major labor laws and not to offer a detailed exposition. For authoritative information and references to fuller descriptions on these laws, you should consult the statutes and regulations themselves.

Employment Laws Assistance provides a list of selected U.S. Department of Labor laws and regulations with links to related compliance assistance activities. The DOL compliance assistance Web site offers complete information on how to comply with federal employment laws.

Rulemaking and Regulations provides brief descriptions of and links to various sources of information on DOL's rulemaking activities and regulations.

Wages & Hours

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) prescribes standards for wages and overtime pay, which affect most private and public employment. The act is administered by the Wage and Hour Division. It requires employers to pay covered employees who are not otherwise exempt at least the federal minimum wage and overtime pay of one-and-one-half-times the regular rate of pay. For nonagricultural operations, it restricts the hours that children under age 16 can work and forbids the employment of children under age 18 in certain jobs deemed too dangerous. For agricultural operations, it prohibits the employment of children under age 16 during school hours and in certain jobs deemed too dangerous.

The Wage and Hour Division also enforces the labor standards provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that apply to aliens authorized to work in the U.S. under certain nonimmigrant visa programs (H-1B, H-1B1, H-1C, H2A).

Workplace Safety & Health

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act is administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Safety and health conditions in most private industries are regulated by OSHA or OSHA-approved state programs, which also cover public sector employers. Employers covered by the OSH Act must comply with the regulations and the safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA. Employers also have a general duty under the OSH Act to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from recognized, serious hazards. OSHA enforces the Act through workplace inspections and investigations. Compliance assistance and other cooperative programs are also available.

Workers' Compensation

The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), administered by The Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP), provides for compensation and medical care to certain maritime employees (including a longshore worker or other person in longshore operations, and any harbor worker, including a ship repairer, shipbuilder, and shipbreaker) and to qualified dependent survivors of such employees who are disabled or die due to injuries that occur on the navigable waters of the United States, or in adjoining areas customarily used in loading, unloading, repairing or building a vessel.

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) is a compensation program that provides a lump-sum payment of $150,000 and prospective medical benefits to employees (or certain of their survivors) of the Department of Energy and its contractors and subcontractors as a result of cancer caused by exposure to radiation, or certain illnesses caused by exposure to beryllium or silica incurred in the performance of duty, as well as for payment of a lump-sum of $50,000 and prospective medical benefits to individuals (or certain of their survivors) determined by the Department of Justice to be eligible for compensation as uranium workers under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA).

The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., establishes a comprehensive and exclusive workers' compensation program which pays compensation for the disability or death of a federal employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty. The FECA, administered by OWCP, provides benefits for wage loss compensation for total or partial disability, schedule awards for permanent loss or loss of use of specified members of the body, related medical costs, and vocational rehabilitation.

The Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) provides monthly cash payments and medical benefits to coal miners totally disabled from pneumoconiosis ("black lung disease") arising from their employment in the nation's coal mines. The statute also provides monthly benefits to a deceased miner's survivors if the miner's death was due to black lung disease.

Employee Benefit Security

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employers who offer pension or welfare benefit plans for their employees. Title I of ERISA is administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration) and imposes a wide range of fiduciary, disclosure and reporting requirements on fiduciaries of pension and welfare benefit plans and on others having dealings with these plans. These provisions preempt many similar state laws. Under Title IV, certain employers and plan administrators must fund an insurance system to protect certain kinds of retirement benefits, with premiums paid to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). EBSA also administers reporting requirements for continuation of health-care provisions, required under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) and the health care portability requirements on group plans under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Unions & Their Members

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959 (also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act) deals with the relationship between a union and its members. It protects union funds and promotes union democracy by requiring labor organizations to file annual financial reports, by requiring union officials, employers, and labor consultants to file reports regarding certain labor relations practices, and by establishing standards for the election of union officers. The act is administered by the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS).

Employee Protection

Most labor and public safety laws and many environmental laws mandate whistleblower protections for employees who complain about violations of the law by their employers. Remedies can include job reinstatement and payment of back wages. OSHA enforces the whistleblower protections in most laws.

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

Certain persons who serve in the armed forces have a right to reemployment with the employer they were with when they entered service. This includes those called up from the reserves or National Guard. These rights are administered by the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS).

Employee Polygraph Protection Act

This law bars most employers from using lie detectors on employees, but permits polygraph tests only in limited circumstances. It is administered by the Wage and Hour Division.

Garnishment of Wages

Garnishment of employee wages by employers is regulated under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CPCA) which is administered by the Wage and Hour Division.

The Family and Medical Leave Act

Administered by the Wage and Hour Division, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires employers of 50 or more employees to give up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to eligible employees for the birth or adoption of a child or for the serious illness of the employee or a spouse, child or parent.

Veterans' Preference

Veterans and other eligible persons have special employment rights with the federal government. They are provided preference in initial hiring and protection in reductions in force. Claims of violation of these rights are investigated by the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS).

Government Contracts, Grants, or Financial Aid

Recipients of government contracts, grants or financial aid are subject to wage, hour, benefits, and safety and health standards under:

The Davis-Bacon Act, which requires payment of prevailing wages and benefits to employees of contractors engaged in federal government construction projects;

The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, which sets wage rates and other labor standards for employees of contractors furnishing services to the federal government;

The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, which requires payment of minimum wages and other labor standards by contractors providing materials and supplies to the federal government.

Administration and enforcement of these laws are by The Wage and Hour Division. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) administers and enforces three federal contract-based civil rights laws that require most federal contractors and subcontractors, as well as federally assisted construction contractors, to provide equal employment opportunity. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management's (OASAM) Civil Rights Center administers and enforces several federal assistance based civil rights laws requiring recipients of federal financial assistance from Department of Labor to provide equal opportunity.

Migrant & Seasonal Agricultural Workers

The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) regulates the hiring and employment activities of agricultural employers, farm labor contractors, and associations using migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. The Act prescribes wage protections, housing and transportation safety standards, farm labor contractor registration requirements, and disclosure requirements. The Wage and Hour Division administers this law.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts agricultural workers from overtime premium pay, but requires the payment of the minimum wage to workers employed on larger farms (farms employing more than approximately seven full-time workers. The Act has special child-labor regulations that apply to agricultural employment; children under 16 are forbidden to work during school hours and in certain jobs deemed too dangerous. Children employed on their families' farms are exempt from these regulations. The Wage and Hour Division administers this law. OSHA also has special safety and health standards that may apply to agricultural operations.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires employers who want to use foreign temporary workers on H-2A visas to get a labor certificate from the Employment and Training Administration certifying that there are not sufficient, able, willing and qualified U.S. workers available to do the work. The labor standards protections of the H-2A program are enforced by The Wage and Hour Division.

Mine Safety & Health

The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) covers all people who work on mine property. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) administers this Act.

The Mine Act holds mine operators responsible for the safety and health of miners; provides for the setting of mandatory safety and health standards, mandates miners' training requirements; prescribes penalties for violations; and enables inspectors to close dangerous mines. The safety and health standards address numerous hazards including roof falls, flammable and explosive gases, fire, electricity, equipment rollovers and maintenance, airborne contaminants, noise, and respirable dust. MSHA enforces safety and health requirements at more than 13,000 mines, investigates mine accidents, and offers mine operators training, technical and compliance assistance.

Construction

Several agencies administer programs related solely to the construction industry. OSHA has special occupational safety and health standards for construction; The Wage and Hour Division, under Davis-Bacon and related acts, requires payment of prevailing wages and benefits; The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Executive Order 11246, which requires federal construction contractors and subcontractors, as well as federally assisted construction contractors, to provide equal employment opportunity; the anti-kickback section of the Copeland Act precludes a federal contractor from inducing any employee to sacrifice any part of the compensation required.

Transportation

Most laws with labor provisions regulating the transportation industry are administered by agencies outside the Department of Labor. However, longshoring and maritime industry safety and health standards are issued and enforced by OSHA. The Longshoring and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), requires employers to assure that workers' compensation is funded and available to eligible employees. In addition, the rights of employees in the mass transit industry are protected when federal funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a transit system. Under the Federal Transit law, the Department of Labor is responsible for approving employee protection arrangements before the department of Transportation can release funds to grantees.

Plant Closings & Layoffs

Such occurrences may be subject to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). WARN offers employees early warning of impending layoffs or plant closings. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) provides information to the public on WARN, though neither ETA nor the Department of Labor has administrative responsibility for the statute, which is enforced through private action in the federal courts.

If you can control the vocabulary you can control the dialogue... The fact is that no one would sign a contract with any union that could not deliver and control it membership... Though my union was the most democratic organization I ever belonged to including my state and the United States, it still had its corruption, and its thugs standing against all who threatened their established order... There are always going to be the haves and the have nots, those who carry the union, and those who ride... That does not make them better or worse than the local church... Politics, and people looking for an easy life at the expense of others is common, and even universal... The problem is that no one would join any union except out of necessity; and it is a crime for people to have to pay union dues when they are paying taxes to government to achieve the same ends only to have government impede the ability of the people to achieve what it refuses to attempt... Fck the Government and Fck the capitalist class... Anyone could do as badly as them, and few could find it in their hearts to do as bad to us...

I don't want to "get" anyone. I want to follow the strongest arguments wherever they may lead. In this particular instance, I found georgeob1's point about motives unpersuasive, so it won't change my views on labor law. But in general, good arguments have changed my mind in the past and are likely to change it in the future. I've been talking politics here for more than 10 years. People who have known me that long will confirm that my political views have changed. Learning through discussion is a Good Thing(TM); the go-get-him mentality only gets in the way.

There are many common motivations and behaviors among humans. That doesn't mean anyone can really know the operating motives of others in individual cases. The question at hand was to what degree do unionized workers truly value what they get for the money taken from them to support the union. It is more than a little interesting in this regard to observe the efforts being made by unions and their Democrat stooges to prohibit secret ballots in organizing efforts or periodic recertifications of the union by employees as in Wisconsin.

However, I'll agree about the general tendency. People do tend to pursue their individual self-interest, particularly in economic matters. I believe the right of perople to do that is one of the core elements of our constitution. Progressives and others of that ilk believe they know better than the rest of us what is truly in our interest. That is the usual excuse of tyrants, and the 20th century gave us rather vivid examples of the horrors authoritarian tyrants, bent on achieving one or another form of social perfection, would resort to in the pursuit of such goals. People aren't sheep.

georgeob1's language used represents his disrespect for the working class people:

"Democrat stooges"

"excuse of tyrants"

"horrors authoritarian tyrants"

"union bosses"

BBB

I have no lack of respect for working people. On the contrary, I fully respect their value, their individuality, and the importance of their freedom to make individual choices in the issues that affect their lives.

Unlike self-styled "progressives" ( and BBB) I don't view them as members of a class who can be considered as sheep, sorely needing the ministrations of self appointed shephards, who know better than they themselves what is really good for them.

Freedom and individual initiative are very precious things. The horrors perpetuated by authoritarian tyrants theoughout the 20th century - always in the name of achieving some sort of socialist or fascist social perfection - were very real indeed. History is not yet over and human nature has not yet changed. In view of all that, I find the sappy credulity of BBB and others here quite remarkable.