Should Congress Change Labor Law on How a Union Can Organize?

February 9, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (39)

Should Congress change the way workers unionize? On the one hand, supporters like James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, argue that the Employee Free Choice Act would protect workers from management coercion by making joining a simple matter of majority rule. On the other hand, opponents like GOP House Leader John Boehner argue that the lack of a secret vote would put employees in a difficult position. What do you think? Post your thoughts.

Previously: Should Michael Phelps Be Sorry?

Tags:
unions,
government intervention,
Congress

Reader Comments Read all comments (39)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Hi Ray,

I'll start by saying that my comment will be short. I'm traveling right now and trying to type this thing on a mobile phone. It's trecherous to say the least. Not be with a normal keyboard until tuesday. I address the remaining points after then.

1) This has been fun. Nothing personal. You've been a formidible opponent. I like that. Most of the time people just pst one liners.

2) Political science (East Africa). And yes, I do ackowledge that much of what we say is guided by subjectivity. I do believe in objective material facts, and that's a subject of another discussion.

3) Agree that growing the middle-class is more complicated than what we make it in these posts.

I'll post details when I return to computer. My wrist is aching from these mobile phone buttons.

Richard Whitehead 3:15AM April 09, 2009

See below for my 1st response. I may be out of reach tomorrow, and to that end I want to offer the following additional thought(I apologize for the double post and the associated rudeness):

Your comment from the other day, "The distribution of wealth is a POLITICAL not an economic question...." is very revealing. To me what you are saying is political = big goverment, and economic = small government - and in your view big government is the 'solution.'

Assuming I am interpreting that correctly I will argue that neither model is pure, absent of corruption, or contains all the answers to prosperity and justice. And said another way, neither socialism or capitalism is pure, absent of corruption, or contains all of the answers to prosperity and justice. I argue that the answer is somewhere in between. And depending on each's biases, we debate which direction (and how far) the pendulum should lean. And this leaning will vary depending on many social, geopolical, economic and domestic factors. Your position seems to indicate that you strickly view Political = big government as the pure solution (and I'm not calling you a socialist or a communist). Am I correct on this?

Your positions also reveal that you have a sociology background. Am I correct? Nothing wrong with that, but at least consider that it may be affecting your subconcious biases. I have an engineering, business and entrepreneurial background, and there is no doubt that I have biases - but I do acknowledge that.

Take all of this for what it is worth - no insult intended, but you can respond how you want to respond. It's all good.

Ray of KY 8:03PM April 07, 2009

Glad to hear from you. Let's reset:

1) To be clear, I never stated that unions should go away. I stated that they should change as opposed to enacting EFCA. I will also concede some and say that if unions can change (job transportability, etc), then maybe some of the labor laws should/could change.

2) Add value to the products/services you produce such that there is market demand and viability for the business. It may not be fair at times, but there is a lot of competitive forces out there working against every business - and employees (both union and nonunion) have to bring collaborative energy to their employer. 'Wishful thinking' or 'fantasy island' as you put is described by others as imagination and vision, which is how we were able to put mankind on the moon - so I take your remarks as a complement.

3)Education is the key. I have friends in the UAW, and they tell me that the UAW wants their rank and file to be technically proficient, but emotionally & financially weak. This keeps the UAW relavant, and when it is time to stoke the flames of fairness, toeing the line of election tickets, or carrying signs they fall in line like a bunch of lemmings. My point is to get education about personnal finances (living by a budget), going to night school when the plant declares a possible shut down in 3 to 5 years, or learning to listen to what leadership tells you with a grain of salt so that you can think indendently.

4 & 5)Unions pull the emotional middle class card way too much. I do not disagree with your last post - there was a large spill over, and the industrial/manufacturing base of the USA supported it. The manual nature of the work allowed for and commanded real value for these wages. And the GI bill and the rise in post G12 education had a profound affect as well. However, that time has passed. For the unions to declare 'bring back the middle class' is inferring that unions and their business as usual will do this - and that is not so. It is also too dramatic, and for them to reassume their seat at the table requires real and sustainable internal changes on their part. I would love for the unions to appply their current model to China, Mexico, Vietnam, etc - but it will not work the way it once did in the USA; EFCA or no EFCA. If EFCA passess I propose that unions will be out flanked in ten years. In current form, unions do not add enough value to retail. The Walmarts and Costcos that I've been to are safe, well lit, and employ knowledgeable and caring associates who seem to care and seem satisfied with earnings. I too have many family members who made a life in the unions, and others who did it independantly in business or as farmers. We own our futures, and how we get their is our responsibilty - coersion or not.

6)whether you acknowledge it or not - real and/or perceived - unions must address the corruption metaphore (label) no matter how you or I define it.

I am not anti union, but I am anti excuse.

Ray of KY 4:13PM April 07, 2009

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

Amidst Obama Scandals, Republicans Prepare a New Debt Ceiling Hostage

Republicans are preparing to take the debt ceiling hostage…again.

Benghazi, IRS and AP Scandals Reveal a Clueless President

The recent slew of scandals reveals an administration either incompetent or malicious.

The IRS Scandal Is About Budget Cuts, Not the Tea Party

Cutting the tax collection budget hurts everyone in the long-run.

Obama 'Going Bulworth' Wouldn't Give Him Power Over Republicans

Both Congress and presidents overestimate the power of the Oval Office.

Bureaucracy Keeps Adopted Children Stuck in International Limbo

The U.S. needs to do more to ease the international adoption process.

The Real Scandal Behind the Benghazi Emails and Attacks

The GOP focuses on talking points while ignoring dangerous security budget cuts.

House Republicans Waste Time With Obamacare Repeal Vote

Why is the House bothering to repeal Obamacare yet again?

advertisement