It's also funny how that era coincided with every other major economy in the world trying to recover from devastation by World War II. Just coincidence, I guess.

What's with this "lackey" stuff? Why is it that these people's writing reads like a bad translation from a 1954 edition of Pravda?

As an Obama leaner, card check makes me uneasy. If I'm working at a place that wants to unionize and it's a secret ballot, then I can't be harassed by union organizers. If it's card check, I'll have to make the choice knowing that if I decline, I might walk out of work to find my cars tires slashed. If anybody doubts this is a reality, try crossing a picket line some time and see what shape your vehicle is in when you come out; it's happened to members of my family.

A secret ballot remains the best way to ensure fairness. If the current secret ballot system is flawed, then reform it so that it's not; don't throw it away. Put another way, I certainly wouldn't want to have my presidential vote public record. Would you?

"Funny how that period also coincided with the..."

That's not the kind of 'productivity' they're talking about.

@Just Saying:

Typically what harassment there is during a union recognition battle is over-proportionally coming from the employer. It's not even close. That's why we're down to less than 10% union in the private sector in this country.

Leo-- Which is why a secret ballot is secret from employers as well as unions. Even if an employer (or a union) wants to use coercion, it does not know who to target, except those who voluntarily make their position known, and those people are voluntarily accepting the risk. Whereas if I'm approached and asked to go along with "card check", the union reps will know exactly who to target if I decline.

I must admit that I also don't understand this "card check" concept. Why isn't a secret ballot preferable? What are you accomplishing with "card check"

Ezra,
Several points.
First, psxmike has an excellent point. Can you repost links to how 'secret elections' translate into coercive tactics by employers?
Second, who said, "The measure of a man is by the strength of his enemies" or something to that effect? Very apt here.
Third, to borrow from Krugman's blog today, when Dayton says, "...destroy our productivity", "what do you mean 'we', pale face?"

The problem isn't the "card check" v. "secret ballot". It's the amount of time it takes to hold the "secret ballot" -- an interval which is routinely used by management for on-the-job-site anti-union activities as well as to intimidate union supporters.

We have "secret ballot" now and have less than 10% representation. That in itself should be an indication that something is wrong.

Most people who talk about this stuff don't understand what it is they are talking about. Employers don't "target" particular employees. They do the equivalent of carpet bombing and hold "captive audience" meetings with ALL the employees where the workers are told things that are untrue about the union. Well--can't the union do the same thing? Uh, no--because the union isn't legally allowed on the company's property! Now that's a fair election. It's as if Obama was allowed to campaign in North Carolina, but McCain was allowed to set foot in the state, but could only call voters on the phone.

I could go on, but suffice to make two points: 1) No country in the western world assumes that managers have a right to insert themselves into this worker's decision except the U.S. Everywhere else, there is either expedited elections following an election (as in parts of Canada)so that companies can not run defammatory campaigns against unionization, or, yes, card check--it's assumed that workers choose collective bargaining representation or not, and managers only intervene after the workers have made that decision--and then bargaining begins. Just as workers don't tell managers whether the company should join the local Chamber of Commerce or not. 2) Finally, ask yourself: Who do you think has more leverage over your workplace decisions: A union whose presence, even if coerced, you can legally decertify within one year (which is why unions don't coerce such a decision in the first place--it's a moronic business model that would be undermined all the time) or the people who actually pay your wages, and sign your checks, who control your very livelyhood? Think about it.

As an Obama leaner, you should know that secret ballots are not required for all elections. Think of card check as just your local work place caucus.

The strikers/slashed tires meme is straight from the National Right to Work folks. It is the new war protesters spitting on veterans.

pdxmike and William: The issue is employer coercion. NLRB elections are pretty nasty things, owing to the fact that they occur in places that inherently have significant unbalances of power.

Let's translate what currently happens in NLRB elections to something we're more familiar with. Imagine that the Republican Party outspends you 10 to 1 in every election; can force the voters to sit through hour long campaign commercials while firing them if they talk to a Democrat; regularly fires people indicating they plan to vote Democrat, even if it's technically illegal; have full contact information for every voter while restricting it to Democrats; and can illegally threaten to remove the rights of citizenship of everyone if they elect a Democrat, with nary a slap on the wrist as punishment (IF they get punished at all).

That's where we currently stand with regards to starting unions. It's horrifically unbalanced. In an ideal world where these things didn't come into play, card check legislation would be unnecessary (and worthy of opposition); however, given the world we actually live in, it's a far more democratic process than the status quo, despite its minor and often exaggerated flaws.

Soviet citizens had the secret ballot, but a secret ballot isn't all there is to democracy. Questions of equal access and campaign rights play just as big a role, and neglecting them does deep harm to democratic values.

Yep, because that's what happened in the post-World War II era, which was also the post-unionization era: An end to productivity growth growth in this country. Funny how that period also coincided with the creation of the first national middle class, America's ascendance to unquestioned economic leadership, and the fastest, most equitable wage growth the country has ever seen.

It's an ignorant argument to imply that post WW II is the same as today and that unionization would have the same non-effect. It's an argument you can sell to the masses of other ignorants.

The problem isn't the "card check" v. "secret ballot". It's the amount of time it takes to hold the "secret ballot" -- an interval which is routinely used by management for on-the-job-site anti-union activities as well as to intimidate union supporters.

It seems that, given that, the solution is to make the secret ballot elections more fair, rather than scrap the secret ballot in favor of card checks

Anyone who thinks that union violence and intimidation are myths or things of the past--well, I guess you've never been to Philadelphia.

By the way,
Q: How many Teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Eleven. You got a problem with that?

What's with this "lackey" stuff? Why is it that these people's writing reads like a bad translation from a 1954 edition of Pravda?

Too true! Worse still, they can't even spell the plural of "lackey" correctly.

As I tell my boys on a near-daily basis, "If you're trying to attempt some sort of intelligent argument here, your case is not helped in the slightest by the crumbs and chocolate smears that decorate your face and your t-shirt."

So you argue against the fact that China wont allow organized unions in the American form. ..and yet their best growth ever has come in the last 30 years. How does that relate?

Our post WWII growth couldnt have anything to do with billions of dollars of investment in industry, literally millions of trained motivated workers with free college education, military surplus (like planes for air cargo) goosing companies with low cost startup possibilities. None of these could explain that growth.

..and how exactly does that square with all the Rosie Riveter gals being forced off the job after the war. How well did the unions protect workers from sexual discrimination back then when the time was ripe for it. Nothing like 5 years of females in every job to use as a hammer against old prejudice. No..didnt happen.

No truth is what we have no in the worlkplace was largely won by unions. min. wage, 40 hour workweek, vacation, weekends.. *clap* but its the law now, and unions have nothing to do with keeping that so.

Now their primary function is to gather dues, harass non-union workers, drive up wages, and help companies to export US jobs to where labor costs are reasonable. No thank you.

Oh yes .. and Im still very much for Obama, because I see his unions stance as political convenience.. the rest of his ideas seem well thought out and good for the country. (ok the israel stuff is a bit 'panderish' too.. )

As an Obama leaner, you should know that secret ballots are not required for all elections. Think of card check as just your local work place caucus.

I live in Texas. Let me assure you, I'm no fan of caucuses either. I formed this opinion shortly after spending two freaking hours to caucus for Obama (and my precinct was relatively speedy).

The strikers/slashed tires meme is straight from the National Right to Work folks. It is the new war protesters spitting on veterans.

This one I have first hand knowledge of. When my mother was living in California, her car got trashed when she had the gall to go to a grocery store that was being picketed. Getting enough food to eat for a week cost her about $1,000 in damage.

No truth is what we have no in the worlkplace was largely won by unions. min. wage, 40 hour workweek, vacation, weekends.. *clap* but its the law now, and unions have nothing to do with keeping that so.

That seems rather backward looking. I would think there are a lot of very worthwhile workers rights sorts of things left to be done: health care, child care, mandatory sick leave and vacation.

Not to mention the fact that laws can be changed. Certainly it would be difficult to roll back anything really popular, but a lot of damage can be done at the margins - as we've seen with NLRB regulations on overtime. It's an ongoing struggle.

Absent compelling contrary evidence of their destructiveness (and make no mistake, that evidence is absent: the gist of the economic evidence is that good labor/management relations are good, bad relations are bad), it seems like reasonably strong unions are a good thing to have around.

Yeselson,

BS!

“Just as workers don't tell managers whether the company should join the local Chamber of Commerce or not.”

Ya the Union would never tell a company what plants they have to keep open, which companies they can sub contract with, that the company must do business just with Unionized Subs. Union would never dream of telling an employer which employees get which jobs and what hours they work regardless of who the better employee is. None of that would ever happen.

“Uh, no--because the union isn't legally allowed on the company's property!” More BS Unions are allowed access to employees during non working hours and breaks.

“where the workers are told things that are untrue about the union.”

No Union has ever tried to scare workers with rumors of layoffs or benefit cuts. They would never dream of promising raises or benefits they could never deliver. It’s always those evil companies that lie.

Your claims are almost like the mob never existed, no the Unions never coerce anyone.

Problem for Unions is for all the good they do in specific industries all people hear is the bad like how UAW killed domestic car companies or people like yeselson making baseless claims any 4 year old with google could disprove.

Just Saying: There's an easy way to avoid getting your property damaged after crossing picket lines: Don't cross picket lines. Yes, its not your (or your mother's) fault that your property got damaged, yes, we shouldn't be blaming the victim, etc. On the other hand, there are some things that carry a higher risk of violence than others, things like walking in high crime areas at night, flashing large amounts of cash in areas with low police presence and crossing picket lines during a strike. If you do these things and something bad happens, well, I feel sorry for you but you really should have known better.

Funny, too, that the Bush era of official anti-unionism and stagnant-to-declining real wages for ordinary Americans has coincided with a putrid stock market. Or could it be that treating workers like crap has consequences for the wealthy, too -- you know, like shrinking the pie that's being divvied up? Just asking.

All of those who talk about reforming existing NLRB elections to be fairer: okay, do it. What form would it take? Card check's better than the status quo, and I'm happy to hear your suggestions that be even better than both. Until you do, I'm assuming your "concern" for the rights of workers is more concern for the ability of employers to deal with a non-unionized work force.

Ah yes, the all powerful ability of unions to somehow track down and talk to workers after hours is equivalent to the ability of employers to coerce employees into going into hour long anti-union propaganda sessions.

Why do I get the idea you're not arguing in good faith, Nate?

Just Saying

That would be second hand knowledge. There were two reported acts of violence during the entire 141 day strike/lockout in 2003-04 - one scab was beaten and one picketer was threatened with a gun. Zero reports of vandalism against customers in San Diego or LA.

While it is possible the event you described happened, it is much more likely that you are a lying douchebag.

FWIW It is estimated that over 70% of shoppers in Southern California did not cross the picket lines. (Made easier by the union removing pickets from Ralphs about three weeks in to the lockout)

Lmaqo ,you can always tell when some conservatarian site has linked to something Ezra has said. The whore horde of idiots who never got beyond Econ101 comes pouring out of their abyss.

A good place for information on the Employee Freed Choice Act can be found at American Rights At Work.

When the National Labor Relations Act was first passed elections were one of many methods of union recognition. They were generally used when there were two or more unions organizing in the same unit to provide a means of worker choice between unions. It was only later that employers gained the "right" to demand elections and to intervene in their outcome.

Power has shifted so far away from workers to make organizing through NLRB elections an extremely difficult proposition. Every year, more than 23,000 workers are fired or discriminated against for organizing in their workplace. EFCA would take a vital step towards restoring the right to organize.

Also: Freeman and Medoff, "What Do Unions Do?" makes a strong case the unions increase productivity.

"Funny how that period also coincided with the creation of the first national middle class, America's ascendance to unquestioned economic leadership, and the fastest, most equitable wage growth the country has ever seen."

Hmmm, I guess you are referring to the 1950's and 1960's. Well, prior to 1964 (and really 1967-68 by the time the agencies got set up) you could discriminate (and many companies (Unions Too!)) did discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, color and a whole bunch of other things. There was no EPA (1970); Medicare (1966) department of Education (1979); government spending as a percentage of gdp was in the mid 20 percent range (it's above 31 or so now);

So since obviously correlation equals causation and the everything was so much better in the 50's and 60's according to Ezra we need to eliminate the EPA, Medicare, Civil Rights Act, Age discrimination act, department of education, and lower the total tax rate the government takes in by about 8% of GDP. Somehow I don't think that's in the plans. But yes, if we just had more oh so efficient unions everything will be just like 1964.

Ezra wasn't making an argument about causation; he was refuting one.

The wingnut blogger claimed that unionization would lead to declining productivity. In reality, not only did that not happen, but precisely the opposite occured.

Come on, "no one like liars," if that IS your real name.

Maybe it was one of those things where you recieve $1000 in property damage to your car, and don't file an insurance report.

You know. Happens all the time.

Ya the Union would never tell a company what plants they have to keep open, which companies they can sub contract with, that the company must do business just with Unionized Subs.

God, Nate, when was the last time you refreshed the National Right to Work web page? 1946? Hot cargo agreements have been illegal for 60 years, you idiot. Which isn't a good thing, but is a fact.

The union doesn't "tell" the boss anything that's in the contract. It's an agreement. Arranged by two parties. That's why they call it "negotiating."

“Uh, no--because the union isn't legally allowed on the company's property!” More BS Unions are allowed access to employees during non working hours and breaks.

You can negotiate access in a contract. This entire discussion is about getting to the bargaining table with the boss in the first place. And before a union is certified, no union has any statutory right to be anywhere on company property, at any time, except on rare occasions when the boss has been so unbelievably hostile vicious that the Board actually issues an order and the courts actually bother enforcing it.

Again, this is basic to anyone with even the smallest amount of information about workers' rights in the US. Saying, "I'm with the union" is not a back-stage pass to the boss's property.

Best thing for big business, and BushCo knows this all too well, it is to use illegal Mexicans to bust more unions, just like what happened to the meatpacking industry in the 80s or thereabouts. Used to be a person could raise a family on a meatpacking wage. Not no more. In fact, it's almost all illegals in the packing houses now, working like slaves while the sons and daughters of the old strong-union meatpackers are greeting folks at Walmart or are on welfare or meth or both. BushCo's raid in Iowa was basically window dressing to fool the rubes into thinking the govt. is doing something about the illegals and it was probably govt. payback to some Orthodox Jews who didn't pay enough bribes.

Card check doesn't impose the necessity for all workers to sign a card. It merely does the following: "The “card-check” bill would demand that the National Labor Relations Board recognize a union once that union could show that more than 50 percent of the workers at a shop had signed cards asking for the union to represent them."

"So you argue against the fact that China wont allow organized unions in the American form. ..and yet their best growth ever has come in the last 30 years. How does that relate?"

And so America should be more like a dictatorship? Why not go the whole way and just demand a one party state and get rid of all elections?

And it is interesting to read the anti-union postings. As soon as workers stand up for their rights, they get demonised. Obviously they should just obey their bosses, leaving their freedom at the workplace door...

Whatever happened to the spirit of 1776? Apparently the American revolution was conducted so every employer can be a little King George within their own property.

Take a look at the average productivity rate in Sweeden, Denmark or Germany where unionization rates have been historically very high.

It was the Sweedish labor movement who actually pushed the employers association to develop wage policies that would increase long-term productivity even at the cost of holding down the wages of their own members.

Even at the labor movement's height, they were never fully accepted as legitimate players in the way they were in Europe. Here they were told to worry about wages and benefits and not much else.

After World War II UAW head Walter Reuther approached GM about devleoping a joint legialtive program which would included government backed pensions and health care. He was told by management to stick to worrying about vacation days and raises. I bet GM had wished they had listened to him now.

For the anti-union lurkers here check out this report from American Rights at Work and report back with your opinion: http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/publications/general/free-and-fair-how-labor-law-fails-u.s.-democratic-election-standards.html

my bad, Reuther led the UAW's GM division after WWII. He became president a few years latter.

am,

my opinion is it's a one sided "report" paid for by an organizstion with overwhelming bais. What would you expect a person to take away from this? According to the report Union's never do anything wrong and are nothing but victims. I hope they didn't spend much money on it as its value is only that of the paper it was written on.

perhaps you would care to share your opinion on this part;

"Virtually no regulation of election spending: In union representation elections, anti-union employers have access to resources that few unions can ever hope to match, such as on-the-clock meetings, the use of company property and equipment, and converting supervisors to anti-union campaign staff. In addition, U.S. labor law provides no financial limitation and alarmingly little in the way of reporting requirements for expenditures during the course of a union recognition election."

This passage is completly ignorant of the reality small employers work under. Teir 4 and lower auto part suppliers who barely make a living to start with and have no assets have their contracts dictated to them by the UAW and larger Unions. These small mom and pop companies can't survive a strike or even a slow down. The fact your "report" fails to even mention this disparity shows how worthless it is.

Woody,

Your a clueless fool. Take your partisan glasses off and pull your head out of your back side. Please show me any bill Democrats have sponsored that would reduce or eliminate illegal immigration. It's Liberals who far more then conservatives compaign for open borders and to treat everyone like a citizen. Blame Bush all you want but as long as progressives fail to recognise we have a border the problem will continue. How do you people get such stupid thoughts in your head?

Let's all remember that unions are there for the benefit of its members at the expense of others. It's that way by design.
Those who argue that unions are harmless to the economy and others would also believe in the "something for nothing" theory.

El Viajero: Unions were the key political muscle behind the campaigns to pass Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, and other reforms that benefit all workers, not just union members.

Unions also routinely fight for a higher minimum wage -- an improvement that benefits many workers who don't belong to unions.

Why don't you take it one step further? All those pesky OSHA and requiements small mom and pop shops have to follow probably put a squeeze on them to. And I'm sure your local auto parts maker could really compete with the big boys if they didn't need to worry about minimum wage or child labor laws. Or let them just import indentured servants from the Phillipines.

We have regulations so workers can have some sense of economic security, something the BA has despartly tried to dismantle. Unions remain one of the best guarantees of economic security, something I don't view as automatically opposed to economic growth

Teir 4 and lower auto part suppliers who barely make a living to start with and have no assets have their contracts dictated to them by the UAW and larger Unions. These small mom and pop companies can't survive a strike or even a slow down.

Note to readers: please observe that this is not an argument against card check, but an argument against the existence of unions, period.

It's remarkable how easy it is to get the mask to slip. "Nate's" first comment on this thread included the statement Problem for Unions is for all the good they do in specific industries all people hear is the bad

All the good they do, huh? Concern troll is concerned.

I applaud the Scandinavian labor model, but I doubt it would work in the US. They've accepted a degree of socialism that I think is good, but it would be a hard sell here.

The American Dream is about getting ahead, and people have been conditioned to think that this means making more money than your parents did. The idea of "common good" doesn't appear to be a core part of the American Dream. I hope Obama is able to change that.
One other difference in some of those European countries that the GOP call evil is that they've moved beyond the simple us-vs-them mentality. The lines between labor and management have been blurred, so that the workers have a vested interest in the company doing well. This is the model that we need to move towards, in the same way we need to understand that "government money" is OUR money.

Just Sayin:

I think you are looking at this from a "What sounds right" POV.

In reality, management can delay "secret ballot" votes for many years, while they fire the organizers illegally. In 10 years, those organizers may get some portion of the back pay, but:
1. the union drive is killed by then, and
2. the message is sent -- support the union, and you're gone!

The union has very little leverage over people who they are unaffiliated with. Employers have a powerful relationship, though. Workers fear them, which is why the secret ballot sounds good, but it's no secret who's helping organize the shop. Punish them, and send fear to the rest.

The 'secret' part only comes into play at the end of a three-year campaign of intimidation.