So just recently, I got a crash course on the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s an issue near and dear to my new pal Prada’s heart, but one, admittedly, I didn’t know much about. Happily, my entire professional career has been union-free, and I hope it always will be. Unions, like affirmative action, have TOTALLY outlived their usefulness.
Anyway, I recently met David Bego, author of The Devil At My Doorstep and CEO of EMS, a cleaning and maintenance company, which fought off a brutal unionization attempt for YEARS. I’m hoping that we’ll get a chance to interview David at a later date, but in the meantime, check out his book! I’m going to send him a link to this post as well, and if we’re reeeeeally nice and reeeeeally lucky, he might even post a comment or two to answer questions or provide more detail. So be sure to give nice shout-outs to Dave Bego in the comments!
After my brief meet/greet with David Bego, and after hearing about some of Prada’s efforts to bring more public attention to the EFCA issue, I asked our good pal J if she could break it down for me in regular person terms. She told me that the Employee Free Choice Act has absolutely nothing to do with Freedom OR Choice. It’s more commonly referred to as “card check” and if passed, this legislation will make it nearly impossible for businesses to stay union-free.
So I said to J, “I don’t get it. How would Card Check work?” And here’s what she said:
“For the purpose of iillustrating how Card Check works, (and just for fun) let’s use the fictitious company, Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes, a chicks-on-the-right-owned business that designs and produces absolutely to-die-for footwear and accessories.”
Naturally, I was instantly intrigued.
She went on to say, “So – the way your fabulous shoe company might get unionized NOW looks something like this:
1. Union targets Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes for unionization, and sends paid union employees known as ‘agitators’ to directly contact the employees of the business.
2. Union agitators gain access to employees by getting someone hired on at Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes, or by identifying a key employee who becomes their inside contact. Since they can’t openly conduct these recruitment campaigns during work hours, agitators will follow employees home from work, or go to employee’s homes—often repeatedly—to get the necessary number of signatures on the union cards. There are often complaints of harassment, intimidation and repeated contact by agitiators as they work to gain the signatures of at least 30% of employees of Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes. There are no restrictions on what the agitators can or can not say or do, and employees often report later that they were given misinformation.
3. Once they have the required number of signatures, the union can petition the NLRB to hold a secret ballot vote within a pre-determined period of time (current law – within 42 days).
4. Prior to the vote, the company is allowed to conduct an information campaign to educate employees on the realities of unionization. Employees have the opportunity to change their minds about unionization, and cast a NO ballot during the vote. If there is a YES vote when the secret ballots are cast, and a majority of employees express their desire to enter into collective bargaining, the company can no longer negotiate with its employees—all negotiations are conducted through the union. This includes everything from salary and benefits, to work hours, vacation days, or job assignments.
5. Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes management and union officials begin negotiations to determine a contractual agreement.”
So I said, “That sounds totally sucky as it is.” And J said, “If you think THAT’S sucky, compare that with how unionization would work if the EFCA legislation gets passed:
1. Agitators contact employees of Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes (following them home from work, showing up at the employees’ homes) to get the necessary number of signatures on the union cards.
2. Once agitators have the signatures of at least 50% + 1 of employees of Chicks’ FABULOUS Shoes, the business must enter into negotiations with the union. After the company is notified of this, they are prohibited from talking with their employees about anything concerning unionization, labor contacts, or benefits.
3. There is no election. Employees do not have the opportunity to change their minds.
4. If an agreement is not reached between the union and the company, a government appointed arbitrator (who most likely won’t know the company’s industry) determines the contract and the company AND EMPLOYEES are forced to comply for a period of 2 years. Employees could even come out worse on the other side. At least under current law, employees could vote against the current contract.”
So I said, “Yeah – that sounds SUPER sucky.”
“You have no idea,” J said. “The full effect of EFCA is hard to imagine as businesses up and down the supply chain are slammed with rising costs. Add to that, the increased costs of this administration’s other proposals, such as Health-Care Reform, and Cap and Trade, and you soon realize that our economy can not sustain these ‘reforms.’ Clever wording makes this sound like something good and creates a positive spin on this legislation…’Free Choice’….sounds great, right? Kind of like ‘Hope’ and ‘Change?’ It’s yet another example of ‘what you see, is not what you get’, as this legislation takes away choice and freedom from the individual.”
“So,” I asked J, “what does that mean for other chicks on the right who just want to buy a new pair of awesome fabulous shoes?”
And J said, “The cost of all goods will increase dramatically. They have to. Businesses have to make a profit to survive, and as the cost of doing business soars in this county, it is not difficult to imagine a mass exodus of jobs to countries around the globe. You don’t need to look any further than the auto industry to compare a unionized and non-unionized business model. While American auto makers were going to bankruptcy proceedings this summer, Honda, Subaru and Toyota have sustained sales and profits.”
J is very wise about this stuff, as you can tell. And EFCA got some attention from the WSJ this week. And now I’m bringing it to YOUR attention, because we all need to be fighting this legislation every bit as hard as we’re fighting Cap and Tax and Obamacare. You can learn lots more about EFCA at this awesome site, too.
In conclusion, unionization is sucky. And EFCA makes unionization super sucky. Tell all your friends!
UPDATE: David Bego gave me some more information on the phone, and I’ve updated this post to reflect that as well as this video he shared with me – which is a FABULOUS display of the thug tactics used by unions to get what they want. It’s also a great example of SEIU’s relationship with ACORN.
I recall the night the unions forced my old employer, Eastern Airlines to close the doors. There were parties at all the union halls into the wee hours of the morning. Popping champaigne corks, shouts of triumph and glee and all that. Then they had to get up the next morning and apply for jobless benefits. NONE of them ever came close to making the salaries they had enjoyed the day before they forced bankruptcy. Many of them had to resort to bankruptcy themselves, but they won! Go figure.
How stupid can you be ? At least get your facts straight about labor law and the arbitration process. You all sound like Sarah Palin “you betcha” goofballs!
Thanks for backing up your post with facts, Dan! And all of the arguments you provided to refute what I said were really helpful too. Good job.
Unions are collectivists which is nothing more than a modern term for communists.
Boy I can tell a lot of stories about my experiences with unions. Hubby Too!
The fact that ACORN,and the Obama administration, are in bed with SEIU and AFL-CIO is all you need to know.
MOCK: It seems you are getting a lot of drive by lefties…it means you are popular and hitting home runs.
Paranoid idiots! Where in the heck do you come up with the “fabulous” shoes routine. Who is fabricating this b.s. ? None of you are educated about labor law or you wouldn’t be spouting off about crap that you don’t know anything about. Just like “you betcha Sarah”. Go to the NLRB website if you want facts about labor law and violations by employers. It has neen documented by testimony in front of Congress by decent hard working Americans about employer abuses in organizing drives. Illegal firings, intimidation and failure to bargain in good faith by employers is exactly what you will see when you educate yourself on the NLRB website. Employers have control of their workers, not unions. In this stupid article it was stated that if employees at a shoe store organize a union the price of the shoes will go up. Oh really. Where are your facts? I got news for you chicks. Your damn shoes are already made in China by Communist labor and marked up 500% since labor there is .50 an hour. Go to Wal Mart dummies!
“Employers have control of their workers, not unions.”
Aaaaand there’s all the proof I needed that it’s pointless to even try to reason with you. You’ve got blinders on.
Unions, like I said, have overstayed their welcome. We have the EEOC now – and that’s plenty. Besides, you still haven’t refuted anything in the post. What part of that unionization process was mis-stated? What part of EFCA was misinterpreted?
By the way, we have rules for commenting here which you might want to check out. http://chicksontheright.com/2009/08/22/mock-and-daisys-rules-of-engagement-version-1-0/
You seem to have a bit of a temper problem, so I just want to be sure you understand the expectations.
My husband and I belong to a union. I do not believe anything in this article. The union negotiated benefits have been good for our family. What disturbs me is the comments in this article about the what ifs in reference to a shoe store becoming unionized. So what? Even if it became unionized would you limit it to only non union customers ? This article is not very honest about unions or labor law. By the way. The non union Japanese carmakers are hurting too in this economic melt down. They have been laying off.
Um…Dan…as an employer I would have to say I do know labor law, and as economist I would have to say prices do indeed go up. Now I could give you some serious facts and stats that give an apple to apple comparison, but I have a feeling since you get your info from one source, I would be wasting my time.
Georgette: Of course Japanese Auto Makers are hurting, everyone is, and does, in an economic down turn. What Mock is referencing is not a lack of business, but inflation. Two very different things. Increased costs, like taxes are passed on to the consumer, which makes it difficult for a business to compete. Ask yourself why foreign auto makers didn’t need a bailout.
My problem with the union argument is it is based on the presumption that all businesses are out to screw the worker. They aren’t. Are some? Yes, but it does no good to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The best way to improve working conditions and pay is competition, which unions remove from the workplace and the market. If a business cannot keep good workers they will soon be out of business. Do you have any idea what it costs to train a worker? That cost could soon eat one up if their trained workers constantly leave for better pastures.
My other problem is the deceit of the unions who made a lot of pie in the sky promises to their members, that they can’t possibly deliver, and is looking for the government to bail them out. Hence the reason they back socialized medicine. If they go belly up on those promises you will not only see the demise of unions completely, who are hurting currently for members, but you will also see some people go to jail, and political careers end. THINK ENRON!
Tell me what you know about labor law, Laurel. In fact, I will start. The NLRA (national labor relations act) is the main segment of labor law which protects worker’s rights or its supposed to. The problem is, it is broken. It has been proven that it is broken by testimony in front of Congress during the Bush Administration. EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act is being debated and proposed as a modification to the NLRA to correct employer abuses in organizing campaigns. Not one documented case of union abuse was cited in testimony in front of Congress. Not one. The NLRB backs this up too. As an employer, you certainly know that current labor law gives you more power over your employees than a union. An example; Lets say you have 30 employees. 25 of them sign union cards stating that they desire union representation. Are you going to recognize their choice and allow them to unionize freely ? I am ready for the challenge.
Dan…I don’t give a rat’s backside about what was or was not testified to in front of Congress. There is news footage of union organizers showing up on people’s doorstep intimidating them to join. As to union’s…my employees are union. It is required by local and state government. I have, as well as my husband, have testified before Congress, and I know what and how things get left out. It’s called politics.
As to debate…no you are not ready, not even remotely. Leave your echo chamber and do some reading of those opposed, and research, then get back to me. My time is valuable and you can ill afford it.
Oh and Dan…I love that you are passionate about what you believe in, but reason is also something to be passionate about.
Have a nice day!
Dan – I’d suggest browsing David Bego’s site as well (linked in the original article).
You people just need to get your facts straight instead of being hysterical. When you start talking about stuff that you don’t know anything about. You will be called out. Mock, I suggest you read the NLRA. It’s the law not opinion. Laurel, if you are a good employer. Good for you. The NLRB will make the case that labor law is broken, not me. I can only point out what I research. You don’t give a rat’s backside to testimony in front of Congress? I suggest you pay attention because it is damn serious. I agree that not all employers are bad but present labor law ALLOWS them to be and some are quite ruthless. Naturally union organizers may approach an employee at home during a campaign. Organizers don’t have ACCESS to employees at work like the employer does. I give people more credit than you do. If they don’t want to listen to an organizer, they can say NO.
I believe that what some union supports do not understand is that unions are not merely going after employers that pay low wages and treat employees poorly (as they should be). Unions have the bulldozer mentality to take everything, regardless of what are who it may be. Employers who treat their employees with respect and pay at or above wages negotiated by unions are still in the sights of the unions, because these companies make unions look bad! Responsible unions are there to protect the rights of the employees, alot of the unions we see today are only focused on lining their pockets, and this is done using money from the dues paid by union members. I don’t think it takes alot of citations and references to show corruption and greed, whether it be from an employer or a union. Sometimes you really just have to step back and ask yourself, is this in my best interest?
Oh, and another note, Dan, apparently you have never been approached by a union organizer. They do not seem to understand the meaning of “NO”. I would like to see how you respond when you have several union organizers that on a daily basis follow you, approach you at your home, at your grocery store, who talk to your neighbors and threaten your family members, who deface you and and your family. They picket and hold signs in front of your house and your place of work, they make untrue claims and scream outrageous statements. And they do all of this just to get a signature. Maybe if the person wanted to become apart of a union, they would have done so from day one. If you think anything I just said is untrue, then I feel sorry for you because you are sorely mistaken and your facts are skewed, and maybe you need to take a step outside your own little world and use that brain that we all hope you have, and make an educated decision for yourself instead of repeating everything you see on TV.
How in the heck did you come up with that analogy ? Before unions the answer was NO! NO wage increase! No Health Benefits! No Breaks!
No time off! No unemployment Comp.! No OSHA! No work comp! No work rights! Unions don’t have to make apologies to any of you for advancing the middle class. Get over it!
A union can take nothing without the employer giving it. Lining their pockets ? Come on! Don’t even put organized labor in the same category as Bernie Madoff. Get real. Who exactly is the corrupt sources you refer to ? Lets hear it but list the names. We want the facts.
Reason. Now you are being stupid. If you are being harassed, call the cops. I looked in the paper today and I didn’t see any union organizers being arrested. When you make up hysterical crap, be prepared to back it up.
Dan, I find it funny that every claim that anyone makes about unions, your first reaction is to disregard it and say “no huh, unions don’t do that stuff.” Then you rant and rave HYSTERICALLY about show me stats and sources. Obviously it is happening otherwise millions of people wouldn’t be saying these truths. Even having a civilized conversation with you is pointless because as you will respond with your demeaning comments and exaggerated ideals that unions are this perfect little angel. Maybe before you make your next comment you should look at things from another perspective, as hard as that may be.
Have just updated the post (scroll to the bottom).
For the record, it should be acknowledge that Mr. Tyler is correct in stating that current law does not require mandatory arbitration. Upon recognition following an election, the employer and the union are only required to engage in “good faith” negotiations. Mandatory arbitration is a creation of the Employee Free Choice Act. While not as hotly contested as the “card check” provisions, it is likely the next point of major contetion in the dispute between the business community and big labor.
I am glad Mr. Tyler referenced the NLRB website. As he is familiar with it, he surely understands that his representations of the innocence of union organizers for intimidation and coercion are without merit. If Mr. Tyler’s argument were genuine, he would be citing the statistics published by the regulatory agency — the National Labor Relations Board –itself. The NLRB Annual Report for the year 2007 shows that there were 5,992 charges of union abuse. The vast majority of these charges were filed by individual employees. Over 84% of all charges alleged “illegal restraint and COERCION.” By way of comparision, in excess of 75% of the cases filed against employers were filed not by employees, but rather by the UNIONS THEMSELVES. Furthermore, less than 6% of the charges filed against employers were determined by the NLRB to have merit justifying the issuance of a formal complaint.
Dan you are still getting ‘your’ facts from one primary source, and that is precisely your problem. That is also why debating you is pointless. Also take note it isn’t that I devalue Congressional testimony, it is that I take it with a grain of salt. BTW…a little factoid for you, OSHA has nothing to do with unions. Another little factoid is your emotional outburst “Before unions the answer was NO! NO wage increase! No Health Benefits! No Breaks!” proves that you are totally one sided. Sorry but the stats and the market place workforce do not support your theory.
Unions don’t care anymore for workers rights than a used car salesman cares if you have a car. It’s about what’s in it for them. While some business owners may also not care about their employees, the difference is they are paying them to do the work. The union is charging(or should I say extortion) them to work. I want my own right to deal with my boss to decide how much I get paid. If he doesn’t want to pay me or give the benefits I request, it’s his decision and I can take it or leave it. Bottom line is there are too many organizations in other countries that will assist in moving your business out of here to avoid the strong-arm tactics. When faced with a choice of being put out of business here or closing and moving across the border it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen.
Dear Mockarena,
Thanks for the opportunity and the support! I have added some information I beleive your readers will find informative and to the point. They will also read real live and true accounts of what life would be like after “EFCA” or “Card Ceck”! If they like this they can get the details in my book!
1.) Unions state that “companies decide how workers form their union.” The National Labor Relations Act specifically provides that an election is held if a minimum – just 30% or more – of employees indicate their support of union representation. The employer has no choice but to submit to the election.
2.) Unions also assert that EFCA does not eliminate the Secret Ballot Election. While, they are technically correct in that the legislation does not remove the secret ballot provisions, Unions understand that the practical effect of the legislation is that elections will no longer be needed. Section 2(a) of EFCA expressly provides that if a majority of employees submit authorization cards (regardless of how they were obtained), the union will be recognized. There is no election because 1.) The union will never notify the employees when 30% of the employees have signed cards and 2.) The union will submit the cards for recognition when 50% + 1 of the employees have signed cards. This opens the door to widespread corruption by union organizers to obtain employee signatures on authorization cards through harassment, intimidation and coercion.
3.) Penalties: Unions want up to a $ 20,000 fine assessed on a company for every unfair labor practice charge against the company which is upheld by the NLRB, but no such fines for unions. Why? Because unions misrepresent that only 42 cases have been filed against unions since the NLRA act was enacted and 29,00 to 30,000 against employers last year alone. These statistics are patently false. The National Labor Relations Board produces an Annual Report summarizing the cases they receive. The report shows that in 2007 alone, there were 5,992 charges filed against unions. The vast majority of these were filed by individual employees. Over 84% of all charges filed alleged “illegal restraint and coercion.” This is hard evidence that the employees are feeling coerced by union representatives. Then truth is unions merely want this provision so they can place extreme financial pressure on the company by filing numerous unfair labor practices (ULP’s) against the company in order to 1.) Keep the company at bay while they card check their employees if EFCA is passed or 2.) Force the company to sign a Neutrality Agreement, which eliminates the employees right to a secret ballot and institutes card check if the secret ballot is deleted from the EFCA bill that is going through Congress! Please read my book for the details!
Unions also overstate the case against employers. There were 16,291 cases brought against employers in 2007. The vast majority of these, almost seventy-five percent, were brought not be employees, but by the unions themselves, as a technique designed to force companies to sign recognitional agreements. Furthermore, less than six percent of the charges were determined by the NLRB to have merit justifying the issuance of a formal complaint.
4.) Unions desperately profess that union companies succeed as well as non-union companies. The auto industry speaks volumes. Stifling work rules and gross inefficiencies are the demise of the union environment.
5.) Unions assert companies stall elections and contract negotiations: Currently unions stall elections as much or more than companies, basically to buy time to intimidate more people into voting for the union or force companies into signing the recognition agreement or previously mentioned neutrality agreement. Unions also stall contract negotiations in many instances to obtain two coveted clauses in the contract, “closed shop” and “check off” provisions. They demand these provisions to ensure every employee must be part of the union and that the employer collects the dues to insure the prosperity of the union, not the employee!
6.)Unions would have you believe that 73% of the public supports passage of this bill: This was a survey done by a company, recruited by the AFL-CIO to perform the survey! All other impartial public polls indicate 60 to 70% of the public including union households do not support the bill!
Unions want you to believe that EFCA will “Restore Freedom to Organize and Bargain”. The freedom of organization has never been compromised. The existing law has been in place since 1947 ( 62 years), when Congress overrode a veto by President Harry Truman to pass the Taft Hartley Act in order to curb the union harassment and intimidation which accompanied the initial twelve year existence of the National Labor Relations Act. It is this regime of abuse and coercion which the unions look to implement by passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unions seek this because they are desperate for membership, which has declined to a low of about 12% today. Why would Congress now entertain reversing the law and subject employees to a ruthless non private process where employees are subject to intimidation and harassment by union organizers who know how they vote? My guess would be political contributions.
We cannot allow our elected officials to compromise the welfare of the citizens merely for political purpose. The truth is EFCA would be devastating for all businesses from the “Mom and Pop Shops” to major corporations, and would eliminate millions of jobs across the country. It is easy to make vague and misleading comments and represent them as the truth as if no defense is necessary. My experience has been when unions are asked to debate openly they decline, because they cannot support the information they propagate! Again, please read my book for the details
Finally, current law does indeed work if the NLRB enforces it! The last chapter of my book is a modern day testimony to it’s effectiveness!
Thanks, Mockarena! You are doing a great service for the American People! I hope they all listen!
Read “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Martin Jay Levit. I am sorry Bego. I do not believe the half truths you laid out. Your book is your opinion. The SEIU has another opinion too. Don’t they. First and foremost, employers DO control the election process under the NLRB. You gave a very weak argument about elections. Yes, employees can petition the NLRB for an election with 30% signatures of a unit but unions don’t do that because it takes 50% plus 1 of a unit to win an election. How stupid can you be? Lets say a union has 75% of the employees of a unit signed up on a petition or cards. You Mr. Bego are not going to recognize the unit, are you Mr Bego? The NLRA allows you to do so under Sec. 9 but you MR. Bego will force an election through the NLRB in which YOU and your UNION Busting Lawyers can “work on” employees on a daily fashion just like every other anti union outfit. Does Wal Mart come to mind? Again, read “Confessions of a Union Buster” by Levit. So who controls what Mr. Bego? Employers like you want the election process under the NLRB because it gives you time to destroy the majority status of a unit and it goes on to this very day across the USA. As you are keenly aware. NLRB secret ballot elections are NOT ran like our election processes for selecting Congress People, Senators and President. So people please wake up. By the way Mr. Bego since you like to talk about union membership decline. Look around you. Your Republican, big business allies have sent just about every American manufacturing job(union and non union) that you can think of to wonderful places like Communist China. White collar jobs too. Real patriotic and real American isn’t it? By the way Mr Bego. Paragraph 5 in your reply is a total LIE! Closed shops are outlawed under Taft-Hartley. Get your facts straight. Under the NLRA, NO ONE, NOT ONE can be forced to belong to a union. Federal law is clear about that and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Isn’t that right Mr. Bego. You can sell your slanted crap here. I expect you to do so.
Dan: Put a sock in it already. If you want unions…then stay in your union. Bottom line is you have no right what so ever to force those that don’t into unions. Unions are like Obama, promise the sun and the moon, the wind and the rain, and have as yet to deliver.
Oh and goober…it was your beloved Bill Clinton that shipped out all of the jobs, and you seem to forget the flip side of that coin, because China has jobs it also means China has a market to buy goods.
You all started it with your half truths. Hey Mr. Bego. Stewart Acuff of the AFL-CIO will be glad to debate you anytime and anyplace. Let us know. Stewart has debated the US Chamber of Commerce about EFCA and other measures. Well, Goobess you beloved George W. didn’t do a damn thing about jobs going overseas for 8 lovely years. Your job is next. Hope you can speak Indian.
Dan, I see you’ve decided to rejoin the conversation, well in your case, you just like hearing the sound of your own voice. First of all, you need to stop getting all your information from wikipedia, all the information from that website is skewed in every meaning of the word, do some real research. Secondly, you comment that with %75 of a “unit”, unions will not hold an election because the employer won’t recongnize the “unit”. When in reality unions know that at least have of those 75% are forced signatures which will be lost in the secret ballot process. Unions realize this and understand that it is much easier to push an employer to sign a neutrality agreement and take over that way. You also comment that employers have 8 hours during the work day to talk with employees about the unions and the process involved. However, as I mentioned earlier unions utilize the remaining 16 hours out of the day to forcefully persuade those employees to unionize. Oh, and don’t give me that nonsense about calling the police if the unions harrass anyone, you know just as well as I do, that those union “organizers” tuck tail and run when the police are called. I also want to touch on the book you quoted, by Martin Jay Levitt (And as a side note if your going to quote someone, or their book, it’s always good practice to spell their name correctly, most of us learned that back in 7th grade), His book was also based on opinion, I fail to see you questioning his thoughts and ideas, even though there are several misconstrued and inaccurate statements made in that book. You also called Mr. Bego a liar about closed shops, you are partly right in saying that closed shops are illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act, however it allows for union shops which for all extensive purposes are the same thing. I know the next thought in your head is “what about the right-to-work law”, which is also true however, it states that a union shop is illegal, yet most employers become “agency shops” due to union pressure. In the case of an agency shop an employee still payes the equivalent of union dues and is required to work under the unions provisions, either way it’s lose-lose. Finally, you want to blame the loss of jobs overseas on big business, lets look at it this way. A company can become unionized and pay an employee 65 dollars an hour to sit at a machine and press a button all day, the employees pay is not based on productivity, work ethic, skill level or any other type of accountability, but purely seniority. The longer that employee sits there the more they are paid. Or a company can pay a supplier in China to make the same product overseas ship it here to America and it is still cheaper, then it sounds like to me that unions are the cuplrits to all of the jobs being sent overseas. Plus on top of that the white-collar jobs are being sent overseas too, because a smart business practice is to watch your investments to make sure every thing is running smoothly. Dan, I am glad you are passionate about what you believe in, but I feel that you have been misinformed in life. If you are content with living an average life that you mull through day by day thats fine, but I find it rude and irreprehensible that you should hold back people that have dreams and work hard for the things that they have. Unions have there place, but for them to walk into any and every place they feel neccessary and try their best to take over just to get a few more payments in their dues, is not what America is about. I say that you by supporting the EFCA and unionization of all companies you are acting un-American and un-Patriotic.
Dan Tyler keeps asking if such and such a percentage of workers sign union cards, why wouldn’t an employer recognize the union? Signing cards can be for any reason and many employees who sign know little information except what they have heard from the union organizer. When employer’s demand an election and a vote by secret ballot, the union win rate goes down to slightly more than 50%. Facts are powerful, and when a fair employer presents them, the union argument can get mighty weak. Nothing illegal about that. Fact is, unions really have little to offer and the only sure thing you usually get is the right to pay dues. Unions know they have a maginal product to sell and, undestandably, don’t want the employer’s message to get out. That is what EFCA is all about. Curbing information in order to convince workers to contribute to labor unions. Lastly, while this bill is disgusting, it makes absolutely no sense to enact it when unemployment continues to head higher and higher under Obama. More unions will mean more unemployment. Sorry, but the truth is the truth.
Great points, Dave Dingee. That’s what seems so ludicrous to me. If union heads are so confident that unionizing is the way to go, why are they so scared of having fair elections?
It’s a big fat power grab. Nothing more, nothing less.
Reason:
“A company can become unionized and pay an employee 65 dollars an hour to sit at a machine and press a button all day, the employees pay is not based on productivity, work ethic, skill level or any other type of accountability, but purely seniority. The longer that employee sits there the more they are paid. Or a company can pay a supplier in China to make the same product overseas ship it here to America and it is still cheaper, then it sounds like to me that unions are the cuplrits to all of the jobs being sent overseas. Plus on top of that the white-collar jobs are being sent overseas too, because a smart business practice is to watch your investments to make sure every thing is running smoothly.”
WELL SAID! AND ON THE MONEY!
Dan Tyler:”You all started it with your half truths. Hey Mr. Bego. Stewart Acuff of the AFL-CIO will be glad to debate you anytime and anyplace. Let us know. Stewart has debated the US Chamber of Commerce about EFCA and other measures. Well, Goobess you beloved George W. didn’t do a damn thing about jobs going overseas for 8 lovely years. Your job is next. Hope you can speak Indian.”
You have as yet to point out a half truth then go to just state your opinion. No, you are right bush didn’t do much about jobs going overseas, and for couple of reasons. One it is the job of congress, and two support for the WOT. that is politics and how deals are made. You want jobs here? Lower taxes. As to my job being outsourced…since I basically work for the government, and my husband DOES work directly for the government I doubt it. Now riddle me this batman…If union s are so hunky dory why the need for this piece of legislation? People would gravitate to them naturally.
And Dave Dingee is absolutely correct! Unions drive up wages which lowers job creation. It is called overhead for those who are clueless. They also create inflation and have a habit of cutting their nose off to spite their face by pricing themselves right out of the market. ASk yourself why HP is now made overseas.