Not so fast

As a taxpayer, GM is able to extort money from me. My only satisfaction is that as a consumer I don't have to drive mediocre union-made GM junk.

Hopefully Apple won't unionize. I like my American designed, Chinese made iPod. It helps me take Russ with me wherever I go.

When my 1997 Toyota 4Runner wears out in 10 more years hopefully I'll be able to buy an American designed, Chinese made car as cheap (proportionally speaking) and well made as my iPod. Martin Brock, on the other hand, will be happily buying, fixing and replacing his wonderful union made jalopies from the third-world state of Michigan.

"why doesn't Congress force these secret ballots on all corporations?"

Because they have no power over me.

I don't give a darn what some board member may think of me. They also are at a distance and have to power to physically intimidate me.

Apples and oranges.

Martin - are you saying that government has a duty to insert itself in employee vs employer negotiations?

I'm saying that governments establish forcible propriety, courts hearing disputes over forcible propriety and so on.

Again, if you do not want government inserting itself in employee vs. employer negotiations, why would you favor statutory decrees compelling employees to hold "secret" ballots to bargain collectively, when a majority of employees have already publicly declared this desire, only when their employer demands these "secret" ballots, even if the employer demands this process only for the employees, not for its own governance.

Why do you want to compel this standard? I'm only telling you that I do not want to compel it.

If it were up to me, any two, ten, hundred or thousand employees could agree to bargain collectively with an employer, and other employees of the same employer could choose to bargain independently, and none of these agreements could remain in force for more than a few years.

Martin...

As a free individual, I *knew* that I was signing on with a corporate entity when I negotiated my salary. Your point about them being "a collective of capitalists" is MOOT, because that is what I chose to agree to.

The entire notion behind Card Check is to create a public ballot where coercion can come into play. It forces people to be public and on the record about their desire to be in a union (or to not be in a union.) This is rife for abuse, and you know it.

The most insidious piece is NOT stabbing or vandalism or any of the other anecdotes that one may or may not dismiss... it's the silent acts of acquiescence that peer pressure creates.

Those NEVER get documented. Doesn't make the practice any less immoral.

It's not about bargaining collectively. It's about having a monopoly. GM can't decide to start hiring non UAW members because the UAW has a legislated monopoly.

Regulations of collective bargaining in highly capital intensive industries, like the automotive industry, can have monopolistic effects. I'm not happy about that, but compelling all sorts of corporate governance rules for only one collective, like secret ballots under NLRB rules for labor organizations, doesn't make me happier.

Again, why doesn't Congress force these secret ballots on all corporations? Have you never received a proxy petition from some company? The company sends me a form in the mail, and I'm expected to fill out the form, with my name on it, and return the form. I'm not even voting for board members. I'm giving someone else the right to vote on my behalf for other people who will sit on the board, voting on my behalf, instructing still other nominally operating the company on my behalf. What's the difference?

You are right that if I want to provide janitorial services to Wal-Mart or buy paper towels from them, I have to negotiate collectively with the Wal-Mart shareholders. But, I am also free to provide my services to or buy paper towels from other stores also.

You aren't obliged to clean GM's toilets either. If you want to assemble automobiles for a major automaker, your options are far more limited, but you aren't compelled to assemble automobiles for a major automaker. Personally, I'd be happer with many more automakers dealing with many more parts suppliers and so on, but that's not the reality.

The reason there is violence & coercion from employers & from unions is because the entire process is unnatural & they are fighting over the control of rents.

I agree. I'm not remotely supportive of all the rent seeking from GM these days. I've posted on this subject often here. I want GM to declare bankruptcy and renegotiate all of its labor agreements, or have new owners of the resources negotiate new agreements, as well as admitting that it can't pay its bondholders, pensioners and other claimants everything they expect to receive.

You probably wouldn't see much collective bargaining in a free system because it signals mediocrity, ...

I not so sure about that. Again, all business corporations are collective bargaining agents. Combining resources with other individuals can be valuable, but this synergy requires some orderly association among the parties. Ideally, everyone freely agrees on the rules of the association, but in practice, no two people fully agree on anything, so associations involve a lot of compromise, and some parties to the bargain are more influential than others for many reasons, not least because they're entitled to more protection from the state. The line between voluntary cooperation and submission to authority is always blurry.

... and employees wouldn't want to send that signal to the employers.

In most cases, the employers they're signaling are already bargaining collectively, so I can't take this assertion seriously.

That is why they need to have legistated monopoly status to survive. If the employer is forced to deal with the collective, the employee doesn't bear the cost of signaling mediocrity.

So if I form a partnership with other investors or if I simply purchase one of millions of shares in a corporation, I'm signaling medocrity, because I'm not conducting the business entirely on my own? Do you reserve this logic only for collective bargaining agents representing laborers?

Everyone who works for or otherwise invests in Microsoft, including Bill Gates, is also signaling mediocrity? I'm not sure I buy that.

Crusader, you write:

Martin - are you saying that government has a duty to insert itself in employee vs employer negotiations?

I wouldn't take that from anything he's said. He raises the question of why anyone would favor state intervention, particularly one-sided state intervention, in employees' negotiations with their employers. He does it with his usual level of charisma, pointing out others' arguments with their straw men while arguing with his own straw man's endorsement of the status quo (again, as usual). As such, he will probably tell you that either you or your straw man asserts this government duty and perhaps the two of you can confer and get back to us when you've come to agreement.

Also as usual, he examines the kernel of the matter and casts aside the prejudices that cloud the common narrative. I find it helpful.

Martin - everyone is free to bargain individually or collectively. It's just that the government should stay the heck out!

Chris O'Leary nailed it by noting that this is simply a payoff to unions. Plain and simple, you are for this if you think that it would increase union representation and that such a result would be a good thing. It's kinda like reinstituting the uptick rule. You're for that if you think it would deter short selling and you think short selling is a bad thing.

Let's face it. If the current state of affairs was a sign up sheet and union bosses thought a secret ballot would give them more leverage, the bill under consideration would institute a secret ballot for union formation. This debate is really about if you want more unionization or not. The specific mechanisms are just noise.

"Furthermore, EFCA doesn't require public sign up sheets in a break room, so this statement is beside the point."

Your naivete (or worse) is breathtaking.

To deny the possibility of coercion is to ignore hundreds of years of history.

The secret ballot is one of the most important inventions in all of human history because it enables people to express their true intentions free from coercion (by either union thugs or company thugs).

Martin:

"capitalists bargaining with all sorts of capital, other than labor, may organize to bargain collectively."

It's not about bargaining collectively. It's about having a monopoly. GM can't decide to start hiring non UAW members because the UAW has a legislated monopoly. You are right that if I want to provide janitorial services to Wal-Mart or buy paper towels from them, I have to negotiate collectively with the Wal-Mart shareholders. But, I am also free to provide my services to or buy paper towels from other stores also.

The reason there is violence & coercion from employers & from unions is because the entire process is unnatural & they are fighting over the control of rents. If there were true freedom to contract, the violence wouldn't be nearly as pervasive, because the players would be free to find agreements legally. You probably wouldn't see much collective bargaining in a free system because it signals mediocrity, and employees wouldn't want to send that signal to the employers. That is why they need to have legistated monopoly status to survive. If the employer is forced to deal with the collective, the employee doesn't bear the cost of signaling mediocrity.

Martin - are you saying that government has a duty to insert itself in employee vs employer negotiations?

However, I believe the government should NOT get involved between employees and employer.

I'm seeing no evidence of this belief here.

Government arbitrators automatically side with unions for obvious reasons.

Nonsense. What obvious reasons?

It is also the right of a company to not negotiate with any union if it so chooses. Reality will force a compromise.

No, rights are what the statesmen say they are, and the statesmen say that capitalists bargaining with all sorts of capital, other than labor, may organize to bargain collectively. All of the forcible proprieties comprising this right don't seem to bother you. Only you can explain why you reserve your indignation for laborers bargaining only with their labor. Why do you argue so?

However, I believe the government should NOT get involved between employees and employer. Government arbitrators automatically side with unions for obvious reasons.

I have to agree with Martin Brock, if a person wants to belong to a union that is his right. It is also the right of a company to not negotiate with any union if it so chooses. Reality will force a compromise.

Last week, the New York Times reported ...

So what? You think I can't find some newspaper article reporting heavy handed tactics by some employer? Your selective obsession with the sins of only one group of corporatists doesn't persuade me that the corporatists you prefer are all sugar, spice and everything nice. Why would it?

For the record, I have no doubt that any number of union bosses are thoroughly unpleasant people and do all sorts of nasty things.

Now, will you be equally honest and concede that any number of bosses in other organizations are unpleasant people?

When I choose to go to work for an employer, it is for terms and conditions that *I* agree to, for better or worse.

But your employer probably is not an individual. It's a collective bargaining agent itself.

If you want to be an individual bargaining with a collective comprised of many individuals joining forces for their mutual advantage, you can do that, but many people obviously don't want to bargain so, particularly the people comprising your employer.

So why do you, through your political partisans, want to construct forcible constraints binding labor collectives differently than collectives of other capitalists? That's the issue we're discussing in reality, not what you personally choose to do.

Now, according to EFCA, another organization that CLAIMS to be in my best interest is unilaterally inserting itself into that agreement.

No. EFCA doesn't have this effect particularly. Your coworkers may already organize to bargain collectively with the collective of capitalists employing them.

If you live in a right-to-work state, as I do, nothing compels you to join a union, even if your coworkers choose to bargain collectively. The EFCA doesn't affect this situation one way or the other.

Furthermore, if you don't want to work for a company wherein the employees choose to bargain collectively, you are free to find another employer, just as you're free to find another employer if you don't like some policy of the collective of capitalists employing you.

I don't understand why you make this distinction between one collective of capitalists, your corporate employer bargaining with shareholder's equity, vs. another collective of capitalists, your coworkers bargaining with their labor (which I consider a form of "capital"). Why do you want forcibly to impose rules on one of these collective bargaining units but not on the other?

That's a specific question. I'd like a specific answer.

In many cases, that third-party is NOT fomented from within, a groundswell of my coworkers; it is instead the work of outside recruiters who wish to negotiate for me (provided they get their cut.)

And the shareholders in the corporation employing you are not "outside"? The corporate officers nominally "representing" these shareholders are not "outside"? What are you talking about?

Your assumption is based on the notion that all labor organization activity emerges organically, from the bottom up. It is false.

No. I've never suggested such a thing and don't believe so. Labor organizations occur in much the same what that other organizations occur. If you want to bicker with your straw man, you can do that without attributing his mindless views to me.

Instead, EFCA is a government imposition on behalf of a cluster of vested self-interested organizations that want to make it easier to do the business of recruiting union members.

You can say the same of all regulation of corporate governance. You just don't. You focus exclusively on labor organizations, because you just do, because you have some ideological agenda.

What's the difference, you ask?

No. I didn't ask. I say there is little difference between a collective bargaining agent for a bunch of laborers and a collective bargaining agent for a bunch of other capitalists. Are you saying there is?

There is no difference -- provided YOU admit that the labor organizations are just that: self-aware corporate organisms that conduct business opaquely.

Of course, they are. Where do I ever suggest anything else? You think that the corporate employers they're bargaining with are not self-aware corporate organisms that conduct business opaquely? Will you be equally honest and concede that they are? I'm waiting.

And yes... having publicly-listed sign-up sheets in the break room makes it VERY easy to see who is and is not on board with the Union.

So? Why is this a bad thing? At least, it's not opaque. I thought you didn't like opacity.

Furthermore, EFCA doesn't require public sign up sheets in a break room, so this statement is beside the point.

BTW, why does anyone think Obama cares if the DJIA falls to 0? He doesn't. His socialist agenda IS about destroying capital markets!

Martin it happens all the time:

Last week, the New York Times reported that Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. ordered a one-year continuation of governmental oversight of the New York City carpenters’ union, citing recent bribery convictions of several local bosses, extensive off-the-books work, and an incident where union militants beat up a worker outside a Catholic school until he was unconscious (because he had the gall to challenge the insiders in a union election).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/nyregion/13labor.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1219349317-0Gvik2o7rmwqq10Ufqzbww

The 62-page indictment details a brutal and sustained campaign by union officials to terrorize employees and employers, in an effort attack employers whose workers haven't chosen unionization, and to force employees into forced-union dues paying ranks. Included in the indictment is a 33 page list of 75 individual acts of thuggery that includes:

* A stabbing

* A broken windshield that cut an employee's face


* Hundreds of thousands of dollars in vandalized construction equipment


* Threats against nonunion workers


* Running the license plates of nonunion employees


* Slashed tires


* Threats against going to the police


* Locking employees in and out of their workplace


* Throwing coffee at employees and their vehicles


* Sabotaging construction equipment


* The use of "star nails" to flatten employees' tires


* Death threats

http://www.nrtw.org/files/nrtw/IUOE17INDICTMENT...>

"Current" said:

True. And unionized employees wouldn't have the power that they do.

Ike,

"As a communicator, I'd like to point out that Current should be disqualified from this discussion.

Americans don't spell 'behavior' with an extra U."

Fair point. We know a bit about Unions in Britain though.

What you are opposed to is a Union become official without the consent of each member of the workforce. I agree with you there. But that means the law should be changed on that point. It should allow dissent and prevent injection of a Union into an existing employment contract without the employees individual consent.

Martin,

A company is not only a collective bargaining organization. The shareholders don't collectively bargain with the employees. Though that is often what happens when a company is founded. The correct analogy is between the union and the cartel.

The ballots done by companies using "them cards you fill out and return" are considered secret ballots. They are similar to those Unions use in the UK.

"Can you present some evidence supporting this conjecture?"

Let's cut the crap. The reason for this law is so that employees can be bullied by unions into voting for unionisation.

That though is not a bad thing. Read about the Miners Strike in the UK.

Give the Unions power and they will show their violent character, then people will reject them. Just as they did in the UK.

As a communicator, I'd like to point out that Current should be disqualified from this discussion.

Americans don't spell 'behavior' with an extra U.

As for Martin Brock...

When I choose to go to work for an employer, it is for terms and conditions that *I* agree to, for better or worse.

Now, according to EFCA, another organization that CLAIMS to be in my best interest is unilaterally inserting itself into that agreement.

In many cases, that third-party is NOT fomented from within, a groundswell of my coworkers; it is instead the work of outside recruiters who wish to negotiate for me (provided they get their cut.)

Your assumption is based on the notion that all labor organization activity emerges organically, from the bottom up. It is false.

Instead, EFCA is a government imposition on behalf of a cluster of vested self-interested organizations that want to make it easier to do the business of recruiting union members.

What's the difference, you ask? There is no difference -- provided YOU admit that the labor organizations are just that: self-aware corporate organisms that conduct business opaquely. EFCA is a political gift to such organisms to make it easier for them to get what they want.

And yes... having publicly-listed sign-up sheets in the break room makes it VERY easy to see who is and is not on board with the Union. Even though, as I pointed out above, this is tantamount to a third-party injecting itself into my previous arrangement without my consent.

"Here's a proposal. Let's compel all corporations to use secret ballots of their members/shareholders. No more sending them cards to fill out and return. Why impose this compulsory process on corporations representing labor but not other capitalists? Why do you want to do that?"

I agree that the whole board and proxy system is clearly dysfunctional and full of self-dealing, but that's a totally separate issue.

"I also know that employers are demanding practically all of these elections, and in the meantime, 80+% of these employers are conducting mandatory, one-on-one interviews with employees. Why is that, do you think?"

While this certainly borders on harassment, people are free to tell the company that they won't vote for the union in meetings with the company and then vote for the union on the ballot.

The fact that unions want to change the rule tells me that this isn't how it's working out. People are telling the union reps yes and then voting no, and the union reps want to know who the traitors are so they can punish them.

This is the definition of a Thugocracy, but you and Martin don't appear to get that.

"...but all of this nonsense about the sanctity of the 'secret' ballot is nauseating..."

Yeah, this while democracy thing is TOTALLY over-rated.

Are you listening to yourself?

"You don't advocate any similar, compulsory process for the other collective bargaining agent involved, nominally representing the collective interests of shareholders. Of course, the corporate officers involved are no less self-interested than union bosses."

That's an important, but totally separate, issue.

"Can you present some evidence supporting this conjecture?"

Have you ever worked in a union environment?

Some people can be very "persuasive", if you know what I mean.

In the face of physical intimidation, most people would just sign the card rather than face psychological or physical punishment.

The secret ballot gives people the power to say "yes" to the bully in public and then say "no" in private.

That's the whole point of the secret ballot.

This is something that wad figured out at least 250 years ago, so I'm not sure why it's so controversial all of a sudden.

Do you know why the key word in "secret ballot" is secret?

Because I can't correlate the results with other measures of opinion after the balloting?

Do you know what a sham election is?

Sure. I also know that employers are demanding practically all of these elections, and in the meantime, 80+% of these employers are conducting mandatory, one-on-one interviews with employees. Why is that, do you think?

Have you ever worked in a union shop?

Yes. Personally, I found union meetings no more useful than most of the other corporate meetings I attend, but all of this nonsense about the sanctity of the "secret" ballot is nauseating. You don't advocate any similar, compulsory process for the other collective bargaining agent involved, nominally representing the collective interests of shareholders. Of course, the corporate officers involved are no less self-interested than union bosses.

It makes workers vulnerable to coercion from union bosses and other pro-union employees.

Can you present some evidence supporting this conjecture?

Here's a proposal. Let's compel all corporations to use secret ballots of their members/shareholders. No more sending them cards to fill out and return. Why impose this compulsory process on corporations representing labor but not other capitalists? Why do you want to do that?

It seems to be just about reducing the regulatory burden on Unions.

Agreed. The idea that states somehow favor collective bargaining agents representing labor over collective bargaining agents representing other capitalists (like corporations), including the rentiers that statesmen exist to establish and support, is patently ridiculous on its face. You need blinders over both eyes and fingers in your ears to believe this nonsense.

"I don't understand the opposition to this either. It seems to be just about reducing the regulatory burden on Unions."

Do you know why the key word in "secret ballot" is secret? Do you know what a sham election is? Have you ever worked in a union shop?

"If the Bush administration had enforced the laws evenly for 8 years this would not be a big issue. The Chamber of Commerce dictated much of Bush's domestic policy, and this is the resulting backlash."

Garbage.

This is just a union power grab.

The so-called Employee Free Choice Act" is a classic example of politicians calling something the exact opposite of what it really is.

Can you be more specific here?

Martin,

I don't understand the opposition to this either. It seems to be just about reducing the regulatory burden on Unions.

In a truly classical liberal society employers should have no power over how their employees congregate.

The elimination of the need for a final vote via a secret ballot.

What's so sacred about a secret ballot? Employees are less honest when they declare their wishes publicly? If employers conduct one-on-one interviews with employees prior to the "secret ballot, how "secret" is it? Why do you want forcibly to impose this condition on the parties?

They can say they are against the union in the public meeting and then vote for the union in the booth.

But we're only discussing cases in which a majority of employees have already publicly declared their support for collective bargaining. The employer is demanding the "secret" ballot in these cases. Employers know more about the process than you do.

Chris O'Leary: "A vote for EFCA is a vote for union enforced tyranny."

And that is a bad thing?

People will never understand the motivations and behaviour of interest groups unless they see it.

If a person actually gets beaten up by a union at work he understand very clearly that a union is a form of cartel.

In the long run it is far better if unions are freer.

I don't understand the opposition to this either. It seems to be just about reducing the regulatory burden on Unions.

In a truly classical liberal society employers should have no power over how their employees congregate.

If the Bush administration had enforced the laws evenly for 8 years this would not be a big issue.

The Chamber of Commerce dictated much of Bush's domestic policy, and this is the resulting backlash.

You reap what you plant.

"The bill would allow unions to organize workers without a secret ballot, giving employees the power to organize by simply signing cards agreeing to join."

This is my problem with the EFCA.

It makes workers vulnerable to coercion from union bosses and other pro-union employees.

No longer can they tell the union boss and the other pro-union people (and sometimes thugs) "Yes" in public in order to maintain their standing and then vote "No" in the ballot box.

A vote for EFCA is a vote for union enforced tyranny.

The so-called Employee Free Choice Act" is a classic example of politicians calling something the exact opposite of what it really is.

"...let's remember that a businessman has no power to coerce anyone. He has only the power to offer a value -- a wage -- in exchange for a value -- a person's labor -- with workers being free to accept the offer or reject it and seek a better offer elsewhere."

While this is technically true, it's not always practically true.

For various, usually self-imposed, reasons such as lifestyle and family, workers are less mobile than some assume.

To ignore this is to formulate a theory that ignores reality.

"What, specifically, is your problem with the reform proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act?"

The elimination of the need for a final vote via a secret ballot.

"In most cases, corporate officers conduct one-on-one interviews with employees before this "secret" ballot to discern their support for the proposition, so the "secrecy" is nonsense. Two separate studies find 78% and 91% of employers, respectively, conducting these interviews before a "secret" ballot, and in practically every case, the employer demands the "secret" ballot, not the employees."

People are free to lie in these meetings and hide their true intentions. They can say they are against the union in the public meeting and then vote for the union in the booth.

Needless to say, all corporations are collective bargaining units, but this post addresses only particular corporate entities, those representing laborers rather than other interested capitalists.

I understand your point, Jason O, but let's remember that a businessman has no power to coerce anyone. He has only the power to offer a value -- a wage -- in exchange for a value -- a person's labor -- with workers being free to accept the offer or reject it and seek a better offer elsewhere.

No. When a majority of employees petition to bargain collectively with an employer, an employer may demand a "secret" ballot under rules imposed by the state, and pending this state imposed process, any agreement between the employer and employees isn't worth the paper it's written in the state's courts.

Correction: The only difference between the reform and current law is that under current law, after more than half of employees petition to bargain collectively, an employer can demand a "secret" ballot under rules imposed by the National Labor Relations Board.

I understand your point, Jason O, but let's remember that a businessman has no power to coerce anyone. He has only the power to offer a value -- a wage -- in exchange for a value -- a person's labor -- with workers being free to accept the offer or reject it and seek a better offer elsewhere.

It almost suggests that employees are regularly coerced by employers.

Yes, it's almost always the employer who demands the "secret" ballot in the process this law would reform. In every case addressed by the reform, a majority of employees have already expressed support for collective bargaining by publicly signing a petition. Under the reform, a minority of employees may still demand a secret ballot, but the employer may not.

This proposed law is starting to sound like French labor law.

Precisely, in what way is this proposed law starting to sound like French labor law?

"I love the title of the proposal the 'Employee Free Choice Act.' It almost suggests that employees are regularly coerced by employers. What congress again fails to understand is that economic coercion requires that the coerced would be better off if the coercer did not exist."

Reminds me of my favorite moment from the campaign.

John Edwards promised to stop the "exploitation" of migrant and illegal workers. However, he never paused to think why people would travel thousands of miles from their families for months or even years just to be exploited.

Perhaps "exploitation" isn't the correct word for something if people voluntarily travel thousands of miles to do it.

What, specifically, is your problem with the reform proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act? The only difference between the reform and currently law is that under the reform, after more than half of employees petition to bargain collectively, an employer can demand a "secret" ballot under rules imposed by the National Labor Relations Board.

In most cases, corporate officers conduct one-on-one interviews with employees before this "secret" ballot to discern their support for the proposition, so the "secrecy" is nonsense. Two separate studies find 78% and 91% of employers, respectively, conducting these interviews before a "secret" ballot, and in practically every case, the employer demands the "secret" ballot, not the employees.

I love the title of the proposal the "Employee Free Choice Act." It almost suggests that employees are regularly coerced by employers. What congress again fails to understand is that economic coercion requires that the coerced would be better off if the coercer did not exist.

So my question is this: Would the employees in need of free choice be better off if their employer did not exist? I only ask because if this proposed legislation is to pass, the following may be a real question for firms. Continue business or close?

This proposed law is starting to sound like French labor law. Is France the model we want to follow?

Good day!

If the market thinks it even might pass the Dow will drop another 1000 points. Bad idea. Really bad timing.