Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 09, 2007
Linda Chavez :: Townhall.com Columnist
Union Free Choice
by Linda Chavez
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Private sector unions are perilously close to going the way of the dinosaur, but they still have enough teeth to convince Democrats to try to cram through legislation that would imperil workers' free choice.

Union membership among non-government employees now stands at 7.4 percent, its lowest rate in decades. So, the AFL-CIO, its affiliates, and several independent unions are trying to make it easier to force employers to recognize unions as exclusive bargaining agents through legislation.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is now at the top of the new Democrat-controlled Congress' agenda. The legislation would eliminate secret ballot elections for union representation, depriving workers of the right to reject the union without incurring the wrath of union organizers or their fellow workers.

If the EFCA passes this time around -- the bill has been introduced in each of the last two Congresses but was held in check by Republicans -- it will be a huge boost for unions.

Under current law, an employer can already agree to collective bargaining with the union on behalf of his workers when a majority of them have signed union authorization cards. But if the employer wants to make sure that his workers weren't pressured into signing the cards, or if he wants to try to convince them that they will have more flexibility without a union or even that the union may end up destroying jobs, he can insist on an open campaign period followed by a secret ballot election.

The new bill, on the other hand, would force the employer to recognize the union solely on the basis of cards collected by union organizers, collected before the employer even has a chance to make his case to the employees. What's more, if a worker feels intimidated when approached by the union organizer, he may not feel free to just say no.

Under the current system, an ambivalent worker can sign the card knowing he'll be able to make a truly free choice later through the secrecy of the ballot box. It's the democratic way.

Existing law also protects workers from vindictive employers. Since the ultimate decision of whether workers will be represented by union contract will be up to all employees in a secret ballot election, employers will not be able to punish those employees they think went against them because the secret ballot protects the identities of those who voted for the union.

Whether or not to be represented by a union is a momentous decision that affects not only current workers but future workers of the company. Once the union has been selected to be the sole bargaining agent, it remains so indefinitely, even after all the workers involved in the selection are long gone. The law does provide a mechanism to decertify a union, but the process is long and difficult.

And the decision to choose a union binds even those employees who don't want to join in non-right-to-work states, since even non-members must pay a portion of dues -- or agency fees as they're often called -- if they're represented by a union contract.

Fewer and fewer workers are choosing unions to represent them in collective bargaining primarily because they see little value in it. Workers represented by union contracts must pay dues amounting to hundreds of dollars a year, which in some cases do not even result in pay and benefit increases to offset the costs of union membership.

What's worse, union dues end up financing political campaigns -- without the express consent of the members -- as well as lobbying, organizing new members, and paying for huge union bureaucracies with fat paychecks for the unions' own leaders and staff. Of course, these activities have little to do with why workers join unions in the first place, but they do add to the power and leverage unions have over workers' lives, even those who don't happen to be members.

A wise man once said "no lasting gain has ever come from compulsion." He was Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American labor movement. Too bad today's union leaders won't heed his words.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .

Be the first to read Linda Chavez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

 
Popular Articles By Chavez

Check out Edwards, woo-woo!
The article aside, everyone has to admit that is one cool picture of John Edwards next to the text. Everyone is railing against the guy for his multi-million dollar property, but just one look at the guy in his rumpled, rolled up sleeve shirt lets you know that this guy is a true working class man. After seeing this pic, there can be no doubt that Edwards is the kind of guy that you will see out building a shed in his back yard, or changing the oil in his car. He likely spends his off days operating a power shovel, or perhaps he runs residential wiring on the weekends.

Yep, Edwards is the epitome of the common working man, and the millions has had racked up in one of the most respected professions there is hasn't altered his roots as a common Joe. Though it hasn't been disclosed, there can be little doubt that his 28,000 square foot house is likely mobile, and his airplanes are all remote controlled.

His regular guy image is proof that he the type of fellow that readily recognizes the way that the country has divided into "two Americas": one for the rich, and for the common slobs like Edwards and us.

Wow, what a guy.

Coming Trend:employees v. union lawsuits
take affirmative action - most unions negotiate for it against the best personal interests of most of the membership (which isn't minority).

Why, exactly, can't a white male sue his union for failure of fiducary duty?


LD
You forgot to mention that he is the son of a miner.

Are you an elitist snob or what?

My 2 cents
I am a retired union construction worker and I freely admit that there have been, are now and will be some neer-do-wells in the union construction hierarchy but I would much rather belong to a (fairly) crooked union than to no union at all.

Intimidation? Yes, it happens. Is that the only place it happens? I kind of doubt it. In my time I was on more than one picket line (I would still go today if asked) and sometimes a contractor needs to get the message right up front.

I have a nice pension now + S.S. and in my working years I had a good hourly wage from year A through year Z and now I can just spend my days doing nothing more than writing letters like this if I so choose, because on the first of the month that money shows up in the bank.

Unions = criminal lawyers..
While employed by the MI Bell, Mtn Bell, & USWEST the CWA served mainly as criminal lawyers, defending those who broke the rules. When a person was wrongly charged with breaking the rules, the union was no where to be found.

(Not surprizing, union reps who got promoted into management, openly voiced their hate for the union.)

Unions are part of a larger picture
Let me start out by saying that I'm not against workers organizing. Having said that, I have problems as many do with corrupt unions that sometimes result.

I see the current leadership of the big unions as part of a larger bad picture for america. The Democratic party has become a strongly-knit coalition of special interest groups who all support each other, understanding that they can accomplish their individual goals by working together.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, the individual goals have now become larger than issues like national security. The unions have been a major voice in the current movement of "republicans are all criminals or idiots or imcompetent or (you fill in the blank as long as it's bad)". They, along with gay rights activists, abortion rights activists, womens rights activists (a combination of gay rights and abortion rights) and ecological activists, etc. have formed a coalition who all seem to think that their individual goals are more important than national security and the war on terror. And the bigger problem is that truth has no place in the aquisition of power for these groups. The amount of lies and distortions that they regularly crank out is truly scary.

The unions are now in line to get their payoff. The result is going to be a lot of "common people" who will lose their right to freely choose whether or not they wish to join a union. The other groups are waiting in the wings for their payoff. A lot of people who thought they were voting for better government are going to find that they voted to give away their freedom.

Son of a Miner?
Uncle Max,

Yes, he's the son of a miner. That's part of the point. He's become fabulously wealthy apart from the help of the unions. He and many other wealthy democrats forget that they're attacking the system in which they made their wealth (at least Edwards made his - Kerry and others married or inherited it).

They try to act like they're part of "the working class" it in order to manipulate the masses. Many have never had a real job in their lives. Those that did, like Edwards, made their money because of Big Government regulations.

Where do wealthy lawyers make their money? They either are employed by or attack big business as a result of regulations. Neither creates jobs or creates wealth (except for the lawyers). If they ever had a real job, they wouldn't be attacking the system the way that they do.

And we want this guy running the country? What's he going to do to improve things - sue France?

Look what UAW did for auto industry
Anybody who believes that unions are good only needs to look at how the UAW is killing the auto industry. The UAW is the number one reason that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are doing so poorly.

Why does Toyota make actually money on the every car they sell, and GM loses $1500 on every car they sell - because of the UAW. Thousands of UAW workers (from GM and Ford) are now looking for work because of the UAW - how is that good for the worker?

Unions kill companies, period.



Unions are not what they used to be.
By law, the sole purpose of a union is collective bargaining. Unfortionately, today unions don't participate in collective bargaining to any extent.

A couple of years ago, a study was performed of a few hundred teachers unions nation wide. The tax filings of these unions, which, because they are a union, are a matter of public record, were studied to see exactly what the union dues collected were being spent on. This study found that less than 5% of all union dues collected were being spent on collective bargaining activities. In fact, only about half of the unions spent ANY MONEY AT ALL, and the most any of them spent was about 15% of the union dues collected.

What did they spend all the union dues on instead? Why, funding Democratic campaigns, funding expensive junkets for the union leadership, and 7-digit salaries for the union bosses.

When Bush 43 first took office, he reinstituted an executive order that Poppy Bush first wrote (and was immediately repealed by Slick Willy). When he did this, unions from coast to coast tried to sue to have the executive order repealed, complaining that it would interfere with workers' rights to unionize.

What did this horrible executive order say? Well, all it did was require a summary of a particular law to be prominently posted at a union workplace similar to the way minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws are required to be posted. It did NOT add to, modify, overwrite, or repeal ANY laws. It ONLY required a law to be posted publicly. What law was this? This law was a law written about 60 years ago that states that a union member shall be provided with the union accounting information showing what money was spent on what if they request that information, and, if a member requests, the union shall refund their portion of dues paid that is spent on expenses other than collective bargaining.

Unions aren't what they used to be. Unions aren't there to help their union members get a fair shake. Unions ONE AND ONLY purpose in life today are to fund Democratic campaigns and make union bosses rich, and NOTHING else.

End Contingency Fee Arrangements
Everytime I look at the Breck Girl I can not help but think "one third" -- it isn't even that he has made an honorable living working on an hourly basis. Instead he has cherry-picked the best cases and then taken a percentage of the compensation.

Try to hire a lawyer on an hourly basis today - they aren't interested, demanding contingency fee arrangements as well.

The solution isn't tort reform but simply making contingency fee arrangements illegal. Do this and the machine of rich leftists would evaporate as lawyers would have to go back to being hourly workers. The cash machine would be empty...

UAW causing higher college costs
Yep, the UAW, after having destroyed the American auto industry has now turned to higher education. UAW is seeking to organize college teaching assistants - grad students who used to teach in exchange for tuition waivers. Who now teach much less and get paid MUCH more, good deal for them but not for students...

A Toyota for me!
I've bought cars made by America-owned companies my entire life. I've decided recently that my next car will be made by a union-free manufacturing facility. Unions have outlived their usefulness and I will not do anything that might support them.

beowulfe
As stated on another one of these boards your
arguments are oversimplistic and unsupported.

You should post the name of the case,
the number of the executive order.
Thus, your testimony, for the time being
is thrown out as hearsay.

For instance, that unions do more than
raise money for political campaigns, see
Diane Ravitch's essay here:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter06-07/includes/ravitch.htm

A poll stating that 60 million American
workers would join a union if they had an
oppurtunity, here:
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/57million.cfm.

Who Built America?
A labor history, for anyone who cares or
is interested, has a site here:
http://www.ashp.cuny.edu/books.html
Try it! You might learn something.



sekhmet et. al
I've been retired for a few years now but when I was active I had Health-Care, which came in REAL handy more than once. Now I have to pay for my own. I can handle it. I realize others can't.

When I was working as a union worker I made about twice the hourly wage that other non-union workers made, plus pension, health-care, etc. I got sick once and I got all free hospitalization - $12,000 for the week I was in the hospital. Another time I spent 3 days in the hospital and everything there was paid too. And most of the time when I was working I had 100% free dental care. Now it's nowhere near as good as it used to be.

In any case between my pension and S.S. I'm comfortable. And I thank God for that.

Sekhmet - I can't answer your question, whether it is rhetorical or not. I am stating my experience. If your union guarantees you job security that's great - mine didn't. About 50% of the time I had to get my own work. Which I did. Health care - I had it when working and after I retired it lasted for another 10 months.

Unions aren't what they used to be - No argument there.

And I know that organized labor and the dems have been in bed with each other since I don't know when. And I know that organized labor is Big Business. (duhhh!)

The phrase 'united we stand divided we fall' is still true.

My own experience
Uncle Max - thanks for speaking up.

I was part of a movement here at work to decline union representation because I felt that the Teamsters had nothing to offer mental health workers that the agency we work for doesn't already provide.

While writing that, I could hear my father spinning in his grave. Dad was an union organizer, coming up through the ranks starting in the 1930s. The stories he told me about working before there were unions -- well, no wonder he was so pro-union!

My husband is a union electrician. He used to be a non-union electrician. When he joined the union he discovered that some of his skills were deficient because non-union contractors put guys on tasks where their skills are strongest instead of requiring them to learn all aspects of the job. My husband had to play catch-up and the union has helped him with that. His health insurance stays in place between jobs rather than forcing us to reestablish with a new provider everytime he changes jobs. Anyone working construction in Alaska knows that you rarely stay with a company for more than a season. When my husband and two coworkers were accused of sexual harrassment because they were in the shower during a men's scheduled shower time and did not immediately speak up when a woman stripped off to use the shower, the union went to bat for them while the State government backed the woman. The union brings my husband together with employers rather than interviewing with every listed employer in the classified along with 2500 other applicants.

I know that unions in the Lower 48 are corrupt (sometimes) and I really don't get the whole organization of unskilled workers, but I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the unions of old for the many workers' rights we enjoy today and I believe there are still trade skills that require someone to teach. In my state, that's done by the trade unions. Taking a state test just means you're good at taking tests. I'd rather have someone wire my house who actually knows what they're doing.

My Dad was a Union Man
He lost his job and pension after 27 years as a United Paperworkers member. The union went on strike and Gulfstates Paper closed their plant in Tuscaloosa. My son was forced to be a union member in Biloxi, MS. Even though it was a right-to-work state, the teamsters intimidated all grocery stores to require all clerks and baggers to join the union. Working in a union job is like having two bosses. One that pays you, and one you have to pay.

Unions need watchdogs too
Remembering the era of Hoffa and much of the Chicago
political stuff going on for decades, one must certainly
recognize that unions can be as corrupt as any other
group with too much power.

That does not mean that unions are in and of themselves
bad.

Expect to see more of them if the minimum wage isn't
raised soon. In western Europe, in virtually every
country there is either a very strong union system or
a minimum wage that is at least $2.00 an hour higher than our present minimum wage or both.

George Will, and I am sure many others, have described
labor as just another comodity in a business. He forgot
to take into consideration that this particular commodity
can unionize, riot in the streets, and vote in the
next election. These are things that bosses would
be wise not to ignore.

Unions = welfare
Sorry folks but the bottom line in my opinion is that the unions with their unrealistic demands for wages and bennies not found in any other industry has caused the prices to go through the roof. As some of the other posters mentioned I too will not buy an American made car. It amounts to supporting a welfare state through low quality over priced products. It is kind of ironic because the union members often are the biggest whiners about how we shouldn't have welfare programs -- "they need to get off their dead *&* and get a job"

Too bad the unions lost their way beginning about fifty years ago.

Moderate Hick
Great post.

Unions add 2500.00 extra PER CAR!

The former GM President, when he took over, said, that he wanted to be the CEO of an AUTO company NOT a health care company that ocassionally made a car.

donaldd
Donaldd

Somehow, I do not think that the only reason Toyota and Honda are so profitable in the US is because "they have not been in business long enough to have retirees collecting benefits". I think it has to do more with the fact that they actually make money on the cars they sell whereas GM loses money on every sale.

As an example of how a union can drive a company into the ground we need only look at GM's extremely generous healthcare benefits that it provides its UAW employees: they have no deductibles, no monthly premiums, and modest copays for doctor's visits. This healthcare plan added $1500 to the price of every vehicle that GM makes!! How can GM possibly compete with this huge handicap?? And who is responsible for this? THE UAW. Now, thanks to the UAW, GM is on the ropes and may never recover.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.