Skip to main content

View Diary: Card Check is More Democratic than NLRB Elections (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More dishonesty. (0+ / 0-)

    Fine.  Sounds to me like you oppose EFCA because you oppose workers organizing.  And I know that EFCA would be the greatest thing imaginable for the union-busting industry.

    Let's just say that my personal interests lie in EFCA's passage.  My understanding of the marketplace suggests against it.  That said, this preface is just an ad hominem attack.

    Most really big corporations aren't run by some plucky owner who sunk his own sweat and savings into the enterprise.

    Most "really big" corporation aren't.  But most corporations are.  And you're proposing a national solution.  If you want to organize Wal-Mart, fine.  But index EFCA by employer-size.  Or make secret ballot work.

    As far as pay is concerned, the fact that workers in unions are paid so much more than similar, non-union workers suggests that managerial pride in a well-paid workforce has its limits - and the limits are often below where the workers want them, or where they need to be for the company to succeed.

    I am shocked-- shocked-- that workers would, by in large, like to be paid more.  So would I. Sadly, EFCA does nothing to shield an employer from the marketplace.  And, again, your proposing a grand approach to what should be a targetted reform.

    Let me say this: You can't be anti-union and pro-worker.

    I'm not against unions or corporations-- they're both market actors created by law with legitimate purposes.  Actually, you know that. I argued for a better secret ballot process upthread. I'm against Labor-Management collusion at the expense of workers (see Neutrality Agreements) and anybody being intimidated out of their legal right to freely choose whether to work in a unionized setting.  Surely, you can allow there's a difference.

    •  It's not an ad hominem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Trapper John, Special K

      It's my impression that, despite your caveats, you simply don't really want workers to organize.  That's based on your hints about your job -- you work for Morgan, Lewis, or something? -- and your comments about just cause guarantees hurting businesses, and businesses being destroyed by overpaid employees protected by union contracts, and about the intrinsic generosity of bosses.

      I mention it because there's a difference between discussing the labor movement and labor law with someone who wants workers to organize, and discussing those things with someone who doesn't.

      On your other points, please get to specifics about "mak[ing] secret ballot work."  Would you or your clients be okay with, say, letting the workers or union determine the bargaining unit unilaterally to prevent idiotic foot-dragging by the boss?  Would you be okay with guaranteed access to the bosses' property for union organizers?  Would you be okay with a much, much more intrusive NLRB, that could send agents to worksites in response to workers' calls, and issue decisions and fines on-site (subject to appeal, like being pulled over for speeding)?

      None of that stuff is going to happen in a million years.  Your clients do not want the government running all over their property, fining them for ULPs.  But maybe you have other ideas that would cut bosses out of the workers' decision on organizing, have a track-record of working similar to card-check, and would end with some kind of secret ballot.

      I'm not against unions or corporations-- they're both market actors created by law with legitimate purposes.

      Well, I'm for workers and for unions.  It's not something to claim agnosticism about.

      "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

      by Pesto on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just a skeptic. (0+ / 0-)

        It's my impression that, despite your caveats, you simply don't really want workers to organize.

        An ad hominem argument:

        consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

        If I stipulate over and over again that I think unions has a productive role to play in the marketplace and I make arguments for a fairer playing field for unions (as opposed to the currently unfair playing field) and you respond by discarding my arguments as simply the Management line-- then it might just be an ad hominem argument.  But fine.

        On your other points, please get to specifics about "mak[ing] secret ballot work."

        Already have, upthread.

        Would you or your clients be okay with, say, letting the workers or union determine the bargaining unit unilaterally to prevent idiotic foot-dragging by the boss?

        Nope, but I would sign off on an accelerated schedule for such determinations.

        Well, I'm for workers and for unions.  It's not something to claim agnosticism about.

        Its not agnosticism that I'm professing.  Its just that its more complicated than you're suggesting.

        Would you be okay with guaranteed access to the bosses' property for union organizers?  

        Nope. Its private property.

        Would you be okay with a much, much more intrusive NLRB, that could send agents to worksites in response to workers' calls, and issue decisions and fines on-site (subject to appeal, like being pulled over for speeding)?

        Sure.  If you parse between violations that do not require intent and violations that do require intent.  

      •  And (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linnaeus, Pesto, Special K

        I think for a lot of us, it's impossible to imagine progressivism as not being inexorably tied to trade unionism. Progressives who don't actively support unions are like, I dunno, progressives against gay rights.  They're out there, but they're odd ducks, and you get they feeling that don't quite get what it's all about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site