Hmmmm…an “analysis of Census data” by a progressive think tank…can you find anything stronger?
“For the union members” being the key, but yes, this is generally the case under the current laws.
It’s associated with higher employment, so the total paid to all workers might not differ as much as you might suspect. But, teasing out the effects of one piece of legislation amidst the thousands of other factors is always going to be highly difficult, if not flatly inconclusive.
I don’t think that’s any more “magical thinking” than the folks complaining about RTW laws infringing the right to contract, ignoring the massive infringments on the union side already in place that RTW is meant (again, clumsily) to offset.
It would certainly be vetoed, so I don’t know how much urgency there actually is on the Republican side. There was a Democrat-sponsorerd labor bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, but it failed to pass either house, and faced opposition from several prominent Democrats. It’s just as well, the reforms were pretty ghastly: more power for the NLRB and removing the secret-ballot part of certification.
Is it your understanding of the situation surrounding the EFCA that unions wanted it passed simply because they wanted to do away with the secret-ballot part of certification? Why would members of democratic institutions like unions, which vote on their own officers, contracts and internal business, seek to do away with something as fundamentally democratic as a secret-ballot vote for or against union certification?
But good luck proving anything. And good luck supporting yourself and paying for a lawyer while disputing it.
You’ve continually talked about the unfair power a union has over the company in this thread, but seemingly no recognition at all of the power the company has over its employees. Without union protection, they can simply fire you with no warning, cutting off your pay and benefits. It is not difficult to drum up some cause to ensure no unemployment needs to be paid, either.
I could be fired tomorrow with no recourse, no warning even. Fortunately, I’m single, childless, healthy, and rent an apartment. So I’m not terribly worried. I could bounce back easily enough, and move if needed. Maybe even go back to school. Someone who is none of those things I am is in a considerably less enviable position, and will be put into severe financial strain and hardship, possibly bankruptcy. Add in an illness in the family and the loss of benefits, and the hardship increases a thousandfold.
That is one hell of a sword they have dangling over your head. The companies know it. So do the workers. Meaning the workers, on top of having a difficult time proving anything, on top of having a considerable expense proving anything, also have this specter shadowing them to discourage them from saying anything at all.
So yeah. There is plenty that is illegal. And as often as not, its not worth the paper the law is written on. That may be a good market solution, but the market is an amoral automaton. Is it always the right solution?
Meaning, do I believe the pro-EFCA side was explicitly seeking to make the certification process less democratic, as goal unto itself? No, I think their goal was to make unions easier to certify (among the other goals of the bill), thus hopefully (in their view) creating more union members and supporters. The means they chose to accomplish this, however, are unacceptable, in that the risk of abuse outweighs the supposed benefit.
Here’s a crude analogy: if a police advocacy group proposed allowing police officers to testify in court anonymously, I wouldn’t assume they planned to use the power to start framing people, but rather for a reasonable goal like protection from reprisal. I would still reject the idea because it is open to easy abuse.
Legal exploitation happens in the workplace all the time – I myself have been disrespected by managers, suffered low wages and dealt with some nasty office politics. Most people probably have similar anecdotes, and learn to deal with it or move to a different job.
But now imagine what must be happening at places like Walmart to cause such huge unrest among the workers. It sounds endemic to their workplace. It’s this widespread exploitation that we should be most concerned about.
Of course it’s disruption – RTW defunds unions, which makes them harder to run. There’s a big difference between “free to operate” and “able to operate”. And just because it’s the only tool in states’ belts doesn’t mean it’s beneficial.
Thanks, and thanks for all the info you’ve poured into the thread. Will look through these now.
THe ultimate goal of a union is to have more members, yes. That was not the primary goal of the EFCA. I encourage you to look into it’s history and the reasons why it was proposed.
If you haven’t the time or inclination (since I brought it up, I would understand if you felt I should explain), I promise that after I get home from work tonight I’ll try and find the time to post more about the EFCA.
ETA: I do have time before I leave to post this: the EFCA was an attempt to reform the process of certification. What was (perceived) to be wrong with that process that made the EFCA seem like a viable solution?
I’ve focused on the side with the unfair advantages, this is true. I did not mean to imply that employers or non-union employees were powerless, though; that is not my position.
You could also quit tomorrow (assuming you at at-will and not under contract). I’m not certain if this paragraph is advocating for the existence of unions, or that employers need to be more restrained by the law from firing people. Can you clarify?
As an aside, you have brought up another area where unions are valuable, in acting as mutual aid societies for members who are out of work or facing difficulties.
So it’s not the law that’s the problem, but rather that the enforcement apparatus is too weak on the employees’ side? I can follow up on this, but I want to make sure I understand what you’re advocating for.
The market isn’t always “right” in the moral sense, but restraining the market should require a heavy burden of proof of market failure. I don’t think labor law meets that standard.
To me, none of that rises to level of exploitation, because you can just quit, just like a business can fire a poorly-performing employee. Having a shitty, stressful job is just that. Either the pay and benefits is worth it for you to still work there, or it isn’t. Exploitation is taking away choice, like locking workers in the shop overnight against their will, or paying half the agreed wage.
Walmart is a discount store. Their business model is built on paying low wages. I don’t think anyone is shocked to be hired at Walmart and learn that their pay is low. Obviously they are willing to trade their labor for the pay, or they would just quit. They are free to demand more, and Walmart is free to agree or refuse.
I am aware of actual violations of law carried out by Walmart stores, such as denying mandated lunch breaks or work off the clock, which they have been sued over and lost (see, CutterJohn, it’s not so impossible.) That is an entirely different matter from unsatisfactorily low pay, however.
It makes it harder to operate in the fashion to which they are accustomed, I will stipulate. Again, we need broader reform.
I was aware of it when it was first proposed, but I’ll have to do some fresh research before I can get back to you on these questions.
Crude analogy, to be sure. Trouble is, for the most part, the police already have that power. The framer is amply empowered, the framee, not so much. Rich guys, CEO’s, people that can attract lawyers and forensic experts with the sweet smell of billable hours suffer very little from the police.
As friend Cutter John points out, the pressures are seldom covert and/or legally actionable. A man who needs his job as badly as most wage-earners do is not empowered to negotiate, the playing field is more like a ladder than a table.
From the other side, how many times have you heard about Wall Street falling in love with the new CEO-SOB of WeSaySo Corp., who’s “lean and mean”, gonna “cut the fat”, trim labor costs. Because the Free Market says so, blessings and peace be upon its name.
If all significant power lies on one side of the equation, we not simply invite the abuse of that power, we reward the men who do. They are the winners, to be admired.
To extend your analogy, the policemen in this instance are not only more empowered to abuse, they get an extra $10K and box seats for sports events for every conviction.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you here. The advantages still lie almost entirely with the employer, despite more than 60 years of Taft-Hartley, IMO. From the inception of organizing to negotiations, the advantages are far and away with the employer. Some of those advantages are what prompted the EFCA’s formulation. And even once the contract is signed, often the employer still has significant advantages and power over his employees.
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I have to be back at work in just 6 hours (for a 17 hour day) so I sleep is a priority at the moment. I should, however, have some time tomorrow afternoon where my gig should permit me to post, and if necessary I’ll try and explain what I was hinting at about the EFCA in both this and my previous post.
For next year’s NFL walk-on try outs, I would like to get a shot at being the Redskin’s starting quarterback. But my negotiating posture for that job is hampered by my lack of physical ability. Can you please arrange with RGIII that he wears heavy weights and electroshock pads to disrupt his play during that time, so I may fairly negotiate for that job?
Also, I have noticed that Angelina Jolie prefers Bred Pitt to me. Can we get Brad uglied up a bit – ok, a lot – so I have a fair chance?
In the alternative, a law forcing Dan Synder to hire me and Angelina to date me would be peachy. Either way is fine, really, as long as I have just as much chance as the next guy.
Just hold on right there, hoss! There are only two utterly fatuous analogies! NFL quarterback and Angelina’s husband. I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate!
It isn’t because I say so that they all fail; it’s because you’ve constructed them so poorly that they don’t reflect or approximate the situation you are trying to parody or satirize.
But since you seem to be insisting that your post has some relevance to this discussion, help me out here: who is the worker and who is the employer in your football example?
Oh, not so much. Clearly, if we had our way, and the union thugs rule America, you might have a shot at an NFL position. Maybe if all the other teams are forced to have lawyers for quarterbacks, the Vikings might actually have a shot at it. Maybe.
I’m guessing you read Vonnegut’s satirical story about Harrison Bergeron. Also guessing its the only Vonnegut you’ve read.
Then what does RG3 have to do with anything in your analogy? Why even bring him up?
Your analogy fails because it has no relation at all to anything that happens regarding unions and employers. Unions don’t seek to hinder workers they don’t represent in order to get union people hired instead of the existing employee.
Note also that RG3 is a union member (NFLPA).
Your 2nd analogy fails for much the same reason: unions don’t seek to de-skill existing workers in a bid to get themselves hired.
If you’re so sure your analogy isn’t a complete and utter clusterfuck of a fail, why don’t you explain how it relates to this discussion. If you can make a convincing case, I’ll acknowledge it.