Free Classifieds
 

Most Viewed

Top 6 articles this week:

Hot Topics

Most commented recent articles:

Looking to get in on the action? Sign in or register to add your comments to any SP article.

Write In

In order to use this feature, please sign in or register.

Advertisement
Half Off Depot Atlanta

Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication

Saxby versus Obama and the unions

President-elect Barack Obama has vowed that “Card Check” will be the law of the land


A closed plant in Ohio that belonged to auto parts maker Delphi until it declared bankruptcy in 2005.
J.D. Pooley/Getty Images

By Stephanie Ramage

President-elect Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the misleadingly titled Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate in 2007, has vowed that the measure, called “Card Check,” will be the law of the land once he’s in office.

Given the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, if Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss loses Georgia’s runoff election on Dec. 2, Card Check probably will become law—and that would be terrible news for Americans who want to keep their jobs. 

Card Check would do away with the present secret ballot process used by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when employees vote on whether to unionize their companies. It would also allow union negotiators to skip bargaining for a first contract. Instead, if employers don’t want to bow to union requirements, the federal government could impose the union’s conditions for up to two years without employees’ approval. Card Check isn’t just about unions; it’s also about federal control of business.

The danger of Card Check is twofold: First, in some situations, only the anonymity of the NLRB process has kept anti-union employees safe from abusive treatment by their pro-union co-workers. Under Card Check, employees who don’t want to unionize would be forced to reveal their vote, which would expose them to harassment by pro-union workers.

On the other hand, if attempts at unionization fail, Card Check would expose pro-union workers to similar treatment by employers—giving pro-union workers an added incentive to pressure their co-workers into unionizing. Even most union workers don’t want Card Check. A January 2007 poll by McLaughlin and Associates showed that 80 percent of union households oppose it. A 2004 Zogby International survey of union workers found that 71 percent agreed that the current private ballot process is fair.

Second, Card Check would inflate the cost of American goods and services, further crippling the ability of American companies to compete in the global market.

At present, even without Card Check, employees can unionize, but they have to go through a process of negotiation mediated by the NLRB. Unions complain that the process costs them too much time and money, and yet 60 percent of attempts to unionize under the present NLRB guidelines are successful. Why isn’t that enough?

Unions are losing members, and membership dues, as more jobs get shipped overseas or companies fold due to global competition. The unions want to force more of the Americans who are still employed to join unions to make up for lost money and clout.

Obviously, the unions’ concern is for themselves, not the well-being of American workers. The same is true for Democrats, who value repaying campaign favors over the good of American employees. Democrats rely heavily on union votes, particularly in the “Rust Belt,” parts of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The Rust Belt got its name in the 1980s, during the decline of the American steel and auto manufacturing industries. As foreign manufacturers like Toyota became major players in the world market, jobs at American auto plants were cut. Union labor was too expensive and not innovative enough to compete. Many of those jobs and their support industries moved South, where unions were far less powerful. The metro Atlanta area owes a substantial chunk of its population to the exodus of jobs from the unionized North. The “Rust Belt” was named for the factories left to rust after their owners closed or moved South.

There is no question that unionization in the first half of the last century brought about much-needed changes in the workplace. At that time, employees’ concerns included being forced to work 15-hour days for too little pay in unsafe conditions. Today, labor laws allow employees to file complaints about such concerns with federal agencies like OSHA. In today's world market, going on strike is more likely to result in businesses shutting down than in higher wages. American workers are not as concerned about how many hours they work as they are about having jobs at all. 

Chambliss isn’t perfect, but he may be all that stands between millions of American workers and the unemployment line. SP

Unions are down 90% and don't mean squat!
Times are getting real bad! Georgia is going to need Big help from the Obama admin. Martin would be the smart move for Georgia now. It's survival; not politics! You send in the Pitcher that can win for the team (Georgia!)

You have to play to win. Labels don't matter. South Carolina made the smart move by getting a Democrat Senator. They will win in the Washington sweepstakes! Georgians have a chance to win big also! Win for Georgia! Send a Democrat to get money from a Democrat. Tough times make for tough choices! Chambliss could not get a plug nickel from a Democrat controlled Government! Georgians would go broke!

patrick
Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM


This article is a complete misrepresentation of the issue. The author should be fired for incompetence and/or dishonesty.

As it is now, employeers can and frequently do exert pressure on and retaliate against employees who seek to organize or join a union. The article reverses this reality by claiming that pro-union workers would bully fellow employees to join. Theoretically, that is possible. However, practically speaking the pressure is exerted by employeers (eg. Wal-Mart).

The law that Obama and labor organizations want to enact would make it easier for individuals to join a union.



Oscar
Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 9:15 AM




Patrick and Oscar,

The fact that the truth is not as you would wish it to be doesn’t change the fact that it is the truth.

The facts of the legislation can’t be disputed. They are available for all to see in the Congressional Record and had you taken the time to look it up before commenting, you certainly could not have, in good conscience, accused me of misrepresenting it. So, I will provide you with a link to it. I would also strongly encourage you to click on the link at “Summary” and then on any PDF links you see. The PDFs are transcripts of remarks made by the lawmakers. If you read the comments of Washington’s Susan Murray and Utah’s Orrin Hatch, you will get a good view of the point-counterpoint on Card Check.

Then, read the bill itself. You will see beyond any shadow of a doubt, Patrick, that this is not about individual rights in regards to joining a union. The bill refers to a majority of public votes—not secret ballot votes— by employees in order to unionize a business.

If you as an individual would like to join a union, you may already do that in most industries without Card Check. Card Check changes the power equation dramatically between unions and employers; it completely ignores the realities of the global marketplace and leaves American jobs in jeopardy.

Here’s the link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

You’ll want to type “Employee Free Choice Act” into the search field.

--Cheers, Stephanie Ramage

Stephanie Ramage
Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:35 AM



> " The law that Obama and labor organizations want to enact would make it easier for individuals to join a union. " <


That's not a good thing! We need less unionization and better management...

Preventing employees from voting their conscience without fellow employees knowing how they vote ALSO NOT A GOOD THING.

This idea of removing the right to a confidential ballot from the equation, sponsored and supported by labor goons, is designed to artificially inflate support for unions. For Obama and Martin (and Oskar and company) to try to parade that pig in lipstick past the American public while denying their true intentions is an insult to us all and NOT A GOOD THING.

A "fillibuster proof" congress with Martin representing the state of Georgia.... NOT A GOOD THING... NOT GOOD for Georgia, not good for the United States of America.

And Oskar, voting for Jim Martin because we need a Georgia Dem in DC who can bring home the bacon? You have defined the problem and, by accepting it, become a part of it.

Drew
Monday, November 24, 2008 at 3:55 PM


You must be logged in to post a comment. You can log in here.

The Sunday Paper actively moderates site content.
Offensive material will be removed.
However, user comments on display do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Sunday Paper or its staff.

 
Advertisement
Depression Studdy
Advertisement
Half Off Depot
Advertisement
Classifieds