Unions Try to Force 'Card Check' Through NLRB

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Unions may have had their purpose 76 years ago in the private sector when the NLRA was first enacted, but the idea of forced unionization was never compatible with American liberty and freedom of association. The idea that membership in any organization can be compelled because it advances the group's interests is anathema to a free people. The justification for unions in the public sector is even more incompatible with a free society, as FDR tacitly acknowledged. At least private sector unions are chastened by the marketplace. Their demands have to be tempered by the needs of the company to survive and prosper. In the public sector, however, their are no profits, only taxpayers to be milked.
The problem began in earnest when public unions got greedy by getting immersed in the political process. The aim, of course, was to control the political process to ensure that they controlled both sides of the bargaining table by electing politicians sympathetic to their interests. This has resulted in a situation in which public employees have higher salaries and far better benefits than the taxpayers who pay for those salaries and benefits. This, combined with virtual job security for life, means that public sector employees can retire earlier, with bigger pensions and generous health care benefits than private sector workers can only dream of.
I know many small business owners and private sector who never quit working because they don’t have the investments to match the defined benefits pensions that public sector workers get. In effect, those private sector workers get to keep working to fund the pensions of those in the public sector.
In a just world, one would expect elected officials to represent the interests of taxpayers generally, not one self-interested segment of them. This development, and the unholy alliance forged between Democrat politicians and labor unions leaders, left the taxpayers out in the cold. Just a few years ago, we witnessed the spectacle of then Governor John Corzine speaking to a throng of NJ public employees and telling them that he was with them in their fight for better wages and benefits. This was an outrage to the general taxpaying public. He should never have been taking sides. However, Corzine was just expressing what many Democrat politicians advance less publically, but just as destructively to the fiscal health of their states.
Public sector union members, prodded by their leaders who depend on their dues for their lavish salaries, have attempted to portray themselves as the victims in this drama. This is ludicrous. They are more correctly the victimizers than the victims. Most public sector employees are more likely to sit by quietly while their union bosses advance their interests and blithely ignore the broader dynamics of trying to comprehend where those generous salaries and benefits actually come from. But there are many public sector employees (of which I am one, albeit retired) who do appreciate that their salaries ad benefits come from hard-working members of the private sector who often lack those same benefits and, yet, work years more to pay for the benefits they themselves lack.
Public sector unions, by their very nature, also have a vested interest in growing government, a situation that is hardly in the best interest of society generally. Unions correctly calculate that bigger government provides greater potential for higher salary demands, as well as more members, more dues, and greater funds to spend on political campaigns to continue the same vicious cycle. The fiscal problems that have rocked many states, including Wisconsin, are the logical consequence of growing public sector union membership and the influence they have been able to exert over state budgets. It is what happens when self-serving unions forge an unholy alliance with politicians anxious to do their bidding in order to gain and keep political power, and the public interest be damned.
At the heart of the problem, of course, is the ability of unions to compel the payment of dues, a large segment of which to finance the political campaigns of sympathetic Democrat (mostly) politicians. Once they have the ability to pick the pockets of their members, union leaders rarely look back to seek the approval of the membership or, more particularly, of the individual members who may or may not support the candidates preferred by leadership. In the Massachusetts Senate race between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley, fully 50% of union members voted for Brown, but 100% of their dues went to support Coakley. Even union members, when polled, overwhelmingly oppose the forced collection of dues to support political candidates, to say nothing of supporting candidates to which they are personally opposed.
In a larger sense , the labor union agenda is entirely compatible with that of the Democrat Party because both employ coercion to advance their interests. Unions use compulsion to corral members. The Democrat Party uses compulsion and our tax dollars to advance its socialistic agenda, of which Obamacare is just the latest example. They make the perfect bedfellows. The problem is that their agendas are totally incompatible with the Founding Father’s vision of a free America and the conditions which made America the freest and most economically productive and prosperous country in the history of the world. Both would trash the Constitution to advance their selfish interests.
Governor Walker has done a brave and commendable job in standing up for the public interest generally against the selfish interests of public sector unions.
His re-election will ensure that the taxpayers interests are fairly represented in Wisconsin state government and that public sector workers will no longer be forced to support organized labor’s agenda with their forced union dues.

Kenny of CT 12:39PM May 13, 2012

> to all the union bashers out there,you should realize that
> 40 hour work week and numerous laws that protect people
> on the job were the result of what unions is the past fought for.
No one is saying that the ancient accomplishments of unions don't belong in the history books. That's exactly where they belong. In the history books, along with the unions.

jms of IL 10:17PM May 12, 2011

> to all the union bashers out there,you should realize that
> 40 hour work week and numerous laws that protect people
> on the job were the result of what unions is the past fought for.
No one is saying that the ancient accomplishments of unions don't belong in the history books. That's exactly where they belong. In the history books, along with the unions.

jms of IL 10:16PM May 12, 2011

Unions are simply "puppets" of the employer. They know who "butters their bread", (financially speaking). If the employer no longer wants an employee in the workplace, The Union helps the employer get rid of the employee. Anyone who has had experience in the workplace with BULLYBOSSES over the last 10-12 years knows this.
There is no real need for Union representation any more. It is a redundant service that is now replaced by State and federal laws. These workplace laws can simply be found on any internet service, by any High School graduate, which most people in this country ARE.(let's hope!) If not, there are lunchrooms that are required by law, to post the FEDERAL labor laws right on the WALLS.
Unions are a thing of the past. They are now a brainwashing corporate institution that work like a parasitic disease, picking workers pockets, in order to play the political racketeering game, along with the corrupt politicians who we all have no need for.
Let's all decide to get rid of them, and vote for the Healthy Workplace Bill, once and for all.
The Union Mafia CEO's will just have to get some gainful employment in sales or something else, like the rest of us. Then they, too, can learn how to file an EEO complaint, or a wages and hours complaint, so easily done, and already paid for, by our payroll and property taxes.
The drain on our economy by these old dinosaurs will add millions, no maybe billions of dollars and breathe new life into our country! I would LOVE to see my $510/yr go to better use than watching the Drama Queens of my local union waste my money running around in courtrooms proving that they didn't do a job that I already KNOW they didn't do.

thenursescountynurse of MD 6:27PM May 11, 2011

This charge is one I have never understood in the 'card check' debate: "enacting card check will lead to intimidation of Workers by union Bosses" I thought We already had laws which provide penalties for workplace harassment and/or intimidation. If these laws are not sufficient to perform their stated functions, should they not be strengthened and enforced? Note: I am not reflecting on the virtues of the secret ballot but on the effectiveness of workplace regulations. Reasons may exist for maintaining the secret ballot in such decisions but the "intimidation" charge, if accurate, is not one of them and only highlights a 'shortcoming' in existing law.

Brian P. Rabbit of PA 12:46PM May 11, 2011

Many of us dislike the tactics of unions, but that doesn't mean we hate American workers. Hello - we ARE American workers! We are tired of being the pawns of unions who themselves are just BIG BUSINESS. Unions only represent those groups of people who can bring in union dues. They look to their own bottom line and try for the bigger sources of income. That is why they focus on the Boeings - more employees equal more income for the union. If they really cared for the plight of the American worker, they would focus on the smaller companies who don't care about employee safety. Instead they focus on the larger companies who are bending over backwards to have good, participative management styles. I say those who blindly support the unions are the real haters of the American workers. By giving the union the power to push Detroit car manufacturers over the brink, you have caused us to lose jobs to overseas companies. By allowing the union to pitch seniority above performance, you are causing the prices of goods to skyrocket while the quality declines. People have a right to join a union. In my state, they also have a right to decline to join a union. Most in my state have decided that they can speak for themselves and work with management directly without paying a third party to speak for them. Apparently many of you think that the American worker is incapable of speaking up for him-or herself. It looks to me that I must have a higher regard for the American worker than you.

Sharon of SC 12:05PM May 02, 2011

More of the typical hatemonging against working people, and working against our economy.
The National Labor Relations Board is protecting American Industry, witness the recent NLRB decision against Boeing that it illegally moved manufacturing away strictly to avoid union labor. There's plenty of third world states that would love to offer to build our planes and take our defense industry offshore. Boeing has been trying to parcel out their factories overseas, yet its been a failure because of quality control lacking elsewhere.
Jets and defense are just about our last manufacturing industry and make up a majority of our exports, hands down. It would be a strategic nightmare to let go of these. The NLRB is defending American industries to keep them in America.
The typical Card Check lies and misinformation don't fly.

Frank of 7:53PM April 29, 2011

... about what the word "rights" means. The ability to organize a union through the card check procedure is not a right. States have every right to protect the secret ballot and the unions ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to abolish it. Of course that might be asking too much.

P. 7:13PM April 28, 2011

What case law should we read ? As you said, " Read the law !"

Bill Hedges of MO 4:28PM April 28, 2011

The NLRB is not making any "card check" part of the law, but is merely enforcing voluntary card check provisions that are already contained in the federal National Labor Relations Act. Card check recognition has been part of the NLRA since 1935. Read the law. Employers may voluntarily grant union recognition to employees if they show that they have majority union support through a petition or cards verified by an independent agency, generally the American Arbitration Association. Most employers don't want to be forced to bargain with their employees so they, quite naturally, do not agree to voluntarily recognizing their workers' union, thereby forcing a traditional, secret-ballot union representation election.
What the NLRB is doing, and rightly so, is challenging the states for their illegal and unconstitutional attempt to deny rights to workers that are already granted under the federal law. The U.S. Constitution does not permit states to take away rights that are already granted citizens under federal law, nor does it permit states from amending federal laws with which they may disagree.

Steve of DC 1:52PM April 28, 2011