Debating an Anti-Union Lawyer (update)

A few weeks ago, I asked for help debating a Monster anti-union lawyer. Yesterday was the latest salvo in that battle, with some interesting new twists.

As I was saying in the original diary, I am member of a small-business networking group, and a rabid anti-union lawyer recently joined. I took that opportunity to politely debate him (with many thanks to all who commented on the original diary and helped shape the message!)

Last week, I gave my speech. I ended up toning it down a little from what I had originally posted in my diary. Today, he had a chance to give his speech. Also, each week all members have a chance to give a very short blurb.

At the same time, I also filed a complaint with the board of the group about him politicising the group (a tricky move since I'm also a board member). In the end, that was a half victory. He will be allowed to stay and give his message, but future members will be more scrutinized.

It also freed me to be more blunt in my own message in response to his speech today.

Here is some of what he was saying today.

First, he is traveling all over the US on unionbusting projects. Seems that right now, he flew in from White Sands, NM. More interesting is how he views his role: he thrives on antagonism, it energizes him, he WANTS to be hated. He enjoys being called union-buster and worse names. He views himself as the lightning rod for employee's anger to free up the employer to focus more on the actual union busting. The impression I took away was, if you want to unionize, don't bother directing your anger at the lawyer. Cut out the lawyer, refuse to even talk to the lawyer. Make sure you talk to the managers directly.

In light of that, I have to make sure I don't get emotional with him.

The second important thing I took away from this was that the group membership was surprisingly supportive. I think this is because many of the members are blue collar business people, and quite pro-union.

I used my own time for a quick response: "My business is about establishing a life-time relationship with my customers. Think of it like a trusted lawyer-client relationship. I don't jet around the country and disappear a few days later. And I'm looking for good reliable clients. That's why I decided to offer a 10% discount to unionized businesses." That got quite a few laughs, I think people got the message (and some later came up to me and patted me on the back, too).

Anyway, thanks all for your suggestions and help in the previous diary.

•  Tips against union-busting

  by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:03:23 AM PDT

•  We need a labor friendly Administration, badly.

  The current degree of hostility towards working people today is just astounding.

  Hell, even a labor neutral Administratin would be a huge improvement.

  by livosh1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:13:29 AM PDT

•  I love unions.

  I've been a union member (now I'm self employed). And I'm inspired by their history.  The list of positive changes unions have brought the US is enormous: the 8-hour day, the weekend, the 40 hour week, overtime, and on and on and on.

  I think it's really important when you talk about this topic to connect with the past and the tremendous benefits that have come from organized workers and their struggle for fair and equitable treatment.  And I think it's important to frame "union busting" as managements effort to continue to oppress and disadvantage valuable workers.

  by davidseth on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:16:30 AM PDT

  •  I don't love unions

    But I do think they are both necessary and desirable.

    Now I should qualify that. There are some things fundamentally wrong with unions.

    A few months ago, a friend of mine was going to exhibit at a trade show in a hotel. Unlike past years, this time it was a unionized hotel. Alas, he was not able to do his exhibit because the hotel wouldn't allow him to plug in an extension cord; only a union electrician was allowed to do that.

    I'm still very much pro-union, but this is the kind of thing that does turn people against unions.

    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:43:54 AM PDT

    •  I'm not claiming that there are no excesses.

      There are. But that's one of the social costs I am willing to pay to offset employers' excesses.  I think of it like this: there wouldn't be unions if workers weren't oppressed.  There wouldn't be excesses if unions, representing workers, were constantly being battled in the name of maximizing profits.  If I have a choice of having unions inconvenience me (the extension cord) or widespread gouging of labor, I choose the former every single time.  As Florence Reese sang:

      Come all of you good workers
      Good news to you I'll tell
      Of how that good old union
      Has come in here to dwell

           (Chorus)
           Which side are you on?
           Which side are you on?
           Which side are you on?
           Which side are you on?

      My daddy was a miner
      And I'm a miner's son
      And I'll stick with the union
      Till every battle's won

      They say in Harlan County
      There are no neutrals there
      You'll either be a union man
      Or a thug for J.H. Blair

      Oh, workers can you stand it?
      Oh, tell me how you can
      Will you be a lousy scab
      Or will you be a man?

      Don't scab for the bosses
      Don't listen to their lies
      Us poor folks haven't got a chance
      Unless we organize

       

      by davidseth on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:51:38 AM PDT

    •  The definition of a union

      I've found that it's easy in these discussions to start discussing things anecdotally -- and that really doesn't get to the heart of whether you fundamentally support unions.

      It's important to remember the simplest definition of a union:

      A union is a group of workers cooperating democratically to stop their boss from doing something s/he wants to do, or to make him/her do something s/he doesn't want to do.

      That's all a union is.  It's not fundamentally about contracts, or hiring halls, or elected officers, or anything else.  I think, from a class perspective, it makes sense to construe "boss" pretty broadly -- that is, workers as a class dealing with the ruling class.  But that's just a slant on the definition.

      From what I read, you support the notion that workers should do this.  To me, that means you support unions.  That union-busting scumbag lawyer doesn't -- in fact, his entire life is devoted to getting workers to turn on each other so they can't cooperate democratically.

      by Pesto on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:23:22 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        And good observation about getting workers to turn on each other. I don't recall if he said it explicitly, but it was part of what he was saying.

        He actually advertises his services pretty widely, and I am wondering if he might be crossing the line to illegality, and whether it might be possible to report him to the Bar Association.

        by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:24:20 PM PDT

•  I am an administrator in a public school.

  I view teachers and support staff as allies rather than adversaries. The fact that I spent 30+ years in the classroom probably colors my viewpoint, a viewpoint not shared by a sizable segment of my administrative colleagues.

  Many school administrators would like nothing better than to eliminate all unions from education. These rather ignorant schmucks can't understand that, from a purely selfish POV, their own compensation parallels the compensation of non-administrators. They seem blithely unaware that their own salaries will stagnate or plummet at the roughly same rate as those of the teachers and support staff.

  by slatsg on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:23:06 AM PDT

  •  Great POV

    In fact, in my speech last week, I used the ally vs. enemy image.

    In the private industry - and to some extent also in schools - there is another aspect: I need customers who have enough money to pay for my services. My customers are small businesses. Where do they get their business? Largely from middle class people.

    Without unions, and with "saving" salary expenses, all that happens is that businesses undermine their own customer base.

    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

    •  Thanks

      Supporting unions is wise for all segments of society, except perhaps for those at the very top.

      by slatsg on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:56:23 AM PDT

      •  Especially for those at the top

        They just aren't smart enough to realize it. I'm sure Marie Antionette thought that all the people in France were happy.

        Was it Robert F Kennedy who said "those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable"?

        by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:16:56 AM PDT

        •  That assumes that the peasants

          are interested in a revolution.  There's absolutely no evidence that American workers want that, unfortunately.  

          Responding to the class war (or, really, the class massacre) and nascent authoritarianism by blogging?  We've got that covered.  Setting up baricades?  Not so much.

          by Pesto on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:31:52 AM PDT

          •  No, fortunately

            I don't think a revolution is every something to aspire to.

            And I don't think the situation is anywhere near as dire as it was pre-1792. Or pre-1917. If we don't watch it, we'll get there, though, and if it happens, I'm sure you will see people ready to set up barricades (literally or figuratively).

            by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:26:31 PM PDT

            •  even something to aspire to...

              Sorry for the typo

              by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:42:50 PM PDT

•  I'm starting to wonder if the time has come

  to try a new slant. Instead of a Union perhaps workers should unite as shareholders under the umbrella of a corportion i.e "Labor Inc." They could then take advantage of all the power, perks and protections now granted corporations. What irony it would be to turn power against itself. One apparently as a seller has the right to set the price of any commodity except labor. Perhaps this is only due to approach and the solution is "how" we organize.

  by java4every1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

  •  Good idea

    Actually, employees should BUY shares in their own companies.

    One apparently as a seller has the right to set the price of any commodity except labor.

    Actually, this is a losing argument, because it is not actually true. I've heard a Libertarian (and neocon and free-market extremist) make the point that as a worker, you CAN set your price of labor. He said, if you don't like your salary, you can always go to another job that pays more.

    His point of view was that labor unions should be outlawed for violating antitrust laws. And I have to admit, from a technical perspective, he is right; unions ARE really based on the same principle as a trust or cartel.

    What he failed to take into account, though, is that labor is special in many respects. For one, the "good" being sold is not like others; it is people's lives. For another, the power is not equal on both sides. Workers generally have no choice; they MUST sell. Employers often have the choice of hiring or not hiring.

    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:52:40 AM PDT

    •  The main flaw in his argument lies in the fact

      that antitrust is functionally applied arbitrarily in recent history and consolidation is allowed until deemed so obnoxious to society at large that token measures are taken. Under current antitrust all the eligible workers in America could unite under 3 or 4 Unions and even hold monopolies in most market segments without scrutiny if held to corporate standards. Workers are not free to set their own wages because government controls the supply (immigration)and can also impact another critical resource(education). The tax structure and money supply can also be unfairly applied to workers.

      by java4every1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:57:49 AM PDT

      •  Yep. Also, antitrust is not universal

        even when you exclude labor.

        For one, to be truly universal, antitrust would have to apply to both sides of the bargain. Under current law, antitrust law applies only to sellers. Buyers can consolidate and collude all they want.

        Also, antitrust law excludes lots of situations where monopolies are allowed.

        Your point about enforcement is another good one.

        But all that doesn't change the fact that the argument "workers can't set the price for their labor" is both factually incorrect, and easily shot down in a debate.

        by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:30:28 PM PDT

        •  Literally, workers can set their price but

          that is a valueless right when government can and is willing to introduce bidders to undercut almost any offer. It's known as dumping in other commodities.

          by java4every1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:43:11 PM PDT

          •  Yep

            But dumping is also not an antitrust violation.

            In international trade, dumping can be illegal according to a WTO rule.

            by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:44:59 PM PDT

            •  Time for labor to come under WTO. n/t

              by java4every1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:47:28 PM PDT

              •  Labor has stronger protection

                Labor is protected by immigration laws. Even though most people complain about "lax" immigration laws, in reality they are far stricter than the laws importing most goods.

                Actually, I do think that applying rules similar to WTO rules to people as well as goods would benefit the USA, counterintuitive as it may seem.

                But that's a completely different topic.

                by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:51:48 PM PDT

                •  There's another piece to this. The US has run

                  it's educational system like the auto industry has run it's quality systems. If we truly want America to be competitive we have to at least match the government input to education that our competitors do. If Japan's governement paid for all the tooling Toyota needed could American automakers be even remotely competitive sans a similiar deal? Countries with free higher education have gained a substantial edge for their labor market and also in ours.

                  by java4every1 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 02:23:11 PM PDT

                  •  Education is important

                    but actually American education, at least at high school level, is far better than its reputation, and my admittedly limited knowledge of the Japanese system underwhelms me. We definitely need to invest in college-level education, and make it more affordable.

                    Overall, though, I suspect that it's less of a part of the puzzle than most people assume.

                    Personally, I attended high school both in the US and in Germany, both public schools. The school in Germany actually had the reputation of being one of the two best in the state. That was 25 years ago, but as far as I can tell, not all that much has changed since then.

                    The material I covered in my math class as an American Senior was not at all in my German high school curriculum. It did show up in the second year of college.

                    Same thing in Spanish; my American Spanish class allowed me to skip a year of Spanish in Germany.

                    An international study, the Pisa study, confirmed this impression.

                    The US was solidly in the middle, with Germany scoring lower (the link above is for the 2003 results, where Germany seems to have caught up)

                    Interestingly, Japan also scored lower than the US.

                    At least based on what I hear about the Japanese system, it is very much just geared towards rote learning, as opposed to thinking. Leaving cultural factors aside, that's actually not all that desirable from an economic standpoint since what we need most is creativity. I also note that in the same PISA study, Japan scored very high on anxiety in math.

                    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:48:00 PM PDT

•  unions in America

  Thom Hartmann, the talk show host, does a lot of commentary on his show about unions and how, since Reagan broke up PATCO, the air traffic controller's union, the union movements in this country have gone in the crapper. And Reagan was a union president no less! I wonder if he cashed all those residual checks from his Hollywood days thanks to SAG, the actors union.
  Fortunately, the union movements are coming back albeit slowly in the US. We the workers of America need unions to keep the pressure on to provide decent wages,reasonable work safety, and most of all health insurance. (the last is a bit of snark)
  And finally the reason many non unionists boast they don't meed the union? Yes they do. The reason they have decent wages and  benefits is the nearby union shop helps raise their compensation too.

  by cagernant on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

•  thriving on antagonism

  Is this level of antagonism a  work thing for him or do you get the feeling this is a theme in many of his relationships? Is it a reason he joined this group?
  You may want to remove the strikethrough on 'monster' in the diary: Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work

  by HiBob on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:43:32 AM PDT

  •  He's a hired gun brought in to fight. An agent.

    He's the straw-man management brings in to deflect responsibility for their actions. They can decide to do terrible things to their workers and then hide behind the evil, loudmouthed lawyer. This guy doesn't qualify as a real lawyer, imho, and the fact that he enjoys his role says a lot about his character. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that his tires were slashed while he attends the next meeting.

    by skrymir on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:54:47 AM PDT

  •  He actually joined as employment defense lawyer

    Representing employers in employment-related disputes. I have no problem with that at all.

    But every time he talks, and even all over his advertising material, he makes it pretty clear that union busting is his real passion.

    Obviously, I'm not in his head, but I suspect he joined the group because he expected easy prey: lots of small business owners in an extremely red part of the country (the lawyer is in CA-49, Darrell Issa, the meeting is next door in CA-50, Cunningscam's old district).

    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:35:44 PM PDT

•  This fits the pattern of the

  union-busting lawyer my district hired to try and break our teacher's union.  The superintendent had been allegedly hired to "break the union", and they hired an aggressive union-busting lawyer recommended by the School Board Association to negotiate.  We went a year without a contract and spent four weeks on the picket line.

  His behavior was very much like that of the lawyer you describe.  Eventually, the district bagged the lawyer and we settled.  In retrospect, the board was not happy with what they got out of him, and three members of the board (plus the superintendent) retired.

  by joycemocha on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 08:48:44 AM PDT

  •  Good to hear!

    I'm glad to hear that. And I think this might be yet another angle of attack for me next time I get the opportunity: show that such lawyers are pretty ineffectual and just cost tons of money.

    I would have to put it in terms of supporting my own business, but can certainly say things such as "Sometimes, businesses hire somebody just for a quick jobs to supposedly save a lot of money. When the job gets botched and the responsible managers are fired, I come in to clean up the mess!"

    by sdgeek on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 01:41:47 PM PDT