However, Warren Buffett (as was made clear in a clip shown on last night's Countdown) is under the mistaken impression that "card check takes away the workers' right to a secret ballot." Maybe someone should explain that this is GOP lying propaganda, and ask him his opinion again, given the correction.

OT: Ezra, what do you think about the New York Times article that is discussing how the Dems in Congress are already gutting Obama's budget. Specifically, Baucus's plan to limit tax deductions for the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, which according to Obama, was to produce $318 billion over the next 10 years as a down payment for overhauling health care.

Instead, the article says that Baucus may want to tax as income the value of the health insurance some employees get on the job, a la McCain.

Will you address this please? I'm really not liking this, but I'm not as knowledgeable as you and others who post here are, on this healthcare debate.

It seems weird that he'd gut a huge source of funding for healthcare, especially when it's a tax on the wealthiest 1.2%, and support a tax that would affect many more than 1.2% of taxpayers. What's up with that?

Ezra,
Why Wal-mart? Shouldn't that analysis include that the company's headquarters are in Arkansas, home to two Democratic Senators who have publically been waivering on the check-card.

EFCA and higher wages for employees are only negative for shareholders in the short run. What these short-sighted bozos don't understand is that employees are also CUSTOMERS. When you have no customers, you have no profit. When your customers are prospering, your business will prosper. However, these idiots can only see their own costs instead of the larger picture.

IF the Democrats aren't willing or able to twist the arms of it's members in order to force their votes on this, then the Democratic party is no longer worth supporting.

I'm getting really fucking sick of the excuse that they are just too pathetic to get their shit together, and we shouldn't hold it against them.

...it would probably be a stimulative thing for the economy if Wal-Mart's massive low wage workforce suddenly enjoyed a quick boost in take-home pay.

Well...yeah...until they decide that they can no longer afford all those higher priced employees and their union negotiated insurance packages and defined benefit retirement packages. Then the layoffs will occur.

Bottom line is card check will drop the employment rolls at WalMart as WalMart attempts to maximize profits.

I've heard this legislation criticized on the grounds that the employee must declare their preference publicly. This allows the union organizers to lobby individuals (say by coming to their house and threatening them). Is that really what's going on here? Is a secret vote practical?

Is a secret vote practical?

Political elections are by secret ballot...and for good reason. There is really no good reason not to require a secret ballot for unionization.
Card check proponents will tell you that card check will not outlaw the secret ballot, and that's true. What's also true is that it will never be used and the union will be able to twist the arms of the individuals to join. They will know who they are.

"This allows the union organizers to lobby individuals (say by coming to their house and threatening them)."

The fact that you (and EV) by focusing on union "coercion" show that you are both ditto-headed pieces of shit that despise working people.

You're not fooling anybody with your faux innocence, "Anonymous."

El Viajero, the market for low wage Wal-Mart workers is monopsonistic; an increase in pay toward worker's fair market value actually would increase employment.

As for whether the secret ballot will be used, in Canadian provinces that allow card check and the equivalent of NLRB elections, you still have those elections.

Anonymous at Home, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain how union organization campaigns go.

A union has a staff that conducts organization projects. A major component of that staff are organizers, who go and lobby workers at their home or where convenient since they don't have access to them at work; this is the status quo. There is no "threatening" involved; any such threat reported would pretty much screw over the union, both because of legal penalties and because a union's bargaining strength is ultimately dependent on having workers' support for its decisions.

This also is the root of the uphill climb unions face. They have to field a decent sized group of trained professionals to go out and lobby each individual worker. This can take many months. Then, after finally getting support from a majority of workers for unionization, the employer can pre-empt that and force a second round, where the employer regularly fires workers, holds captive meetings, and uses other coercive tactics. This isn't particularly expensive for the target company, because they just use pre-existing management structure and power to implement the anti-unionization campaign, often with some marginal outside consultant help ("union busters"). The financial burden is forced nearly entirely on the union doing the organizing, who must win two rounds, while the employer gets to campaign against it on the cheap and needs to win only one round.

Another point: most organizers nowadays are recent college graduates and white collar professional in background. Back in the old days, you'd have a much less effete, for lack of a better word, staff. There's some interesting discussion about whether this is bad for unions in general--can the highly educated professional staff of a union really effectively represent their workers' interests? But back on point, the idea that a 23 year old woman with a nose stud is going to be going around threatening truckers if they don't sign a card is a (ridiculous) red herring.

The arguments put forth for card check is how it really won't be coercive.

What hasn't been discussed is how forcing a secret ballot is wrong. And if you wish to make that argument, why isn't it wrong for political elections?

It's an argument that you really cannot make

The truth is, those who promote card check do so because they believe it will increase unionization, which they believe is a good thing. They view unions as benign psudo-government entities and part of the workers' paradise they wish to build. The reality is, it's just another layer to pay for......and someone pays.

The arguments put forth for card check is how it really won't be coercive.

What hasn't been discussed is how forcing a secret ballot is wrong. And if you wish to make that argument, why isn't it wrong for political elections?

It's an argument that you really cannot make

The truth is, those who promote card check do so because they believe it will increase unionization, which they believe is a good thing. They view unions as benign psudo-government entities and part of the workers' paradise they wish to build. The reality is, it's just another layer to pay for......and someone pays.

most organizers nowadays are recent college graduates and white collar professional in background. Back in the old days, you'd have a much less effete, for lack of a better word, staff.

Might be a good idea. I was at a city council meeting on whether the city should allow a mega-Walmart in. Walmart had bussed in perhaps 200 workers (who were passing around a sign-up sheet) who took turns at the mic.

Their take, which seemed to me sincere in most cases, was that Walmart was their patron and friend, giving them jobs when no one else would and taking care of them. Unions, they said, were big self-serving bureaucracies run by lawyers that were just after their money, and didn't/couldn't represent them.

There was really a class issue here. I wonder if it would be feasible for unions to address this.

El Viajero, having a "secret ballot" election is not, in itself, indicative of a democratic election. Consider: after 1936, the Soviet Constitution required secret ballot elections for all government positions. And, by all accounts, this was something followed through on, by the letter of the law; no one's name was attached to the ballot. The issue was more structural--other parties weren't allowed to even exist, there existed no institutional support structure for politicians outside the CCCP, no access to a media platform to reach voters, bureaucratic apparatchiks could threaten voters depending on the general outcome, etc. Which is why everyone recognized that Soviet democracy was a farce. These same structural issues are what make NLRB elections asymmetric--one party has a high level of pre-existing institional power, and the other doesn't.

Baber, it's a significant issue, and there exist reform groups, but it's something that doesn't have any obvious solutions. Organizing and research staff are expected to work very long and irregular hours, extending into evenings and weekends. It requires a substantial skill set (e.g. typically fluent in multiple languages, good at convincing writing and speaking, understanding of labor law, generic white collar office skills, database systems) for a relatively low wage. It's something that only a person without many pre-existing responsibilities can do.

You have some unions like the CNA that do manage to draw extensively from their membership, but when we're talking about Justice for Janitors or Wal-Mart campaigns, it becomes more difficult.

Free speech for me but not for thee. Card check is gangsterism. We'll need some serious machine guns to keep the organizing thugs at bay.

Let's see... we're going to do away with the secret ballot, so both the union and your employer - whoever prevails - will know if you voted the "wrong" way. Some questions just answer themselves.

zephyrus you don't know the definition of the word effete go look it. one important aspect of this bill is the forced arbitration requirement after 90 days if there is an impasse. management is more concerned about this then anything else. i am an independent contractor for a major overnight delivery firm I bought this route after being laid off from my white collar job. I work with 80 other contractors in the terminal. there is not one of us who supports this legislation. I would like to know how many of you who have commented have ever worked in a union shop and under union rules. This legislation is not about protecting workers. It is about protecting the power and clout of large unions who have unwaveringly supported the democratic party for the past sixty years.

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!