March 3, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Huh?
In re card check, Ezra Klein says "Well, workplaces are not a democracy, so why should I care about secret ballots?"
Well, yes, they aren't. But last time I looked, our country was. And when we decide to go in and put the heavy hand of the state to work on the problem of unionisation, it's not merely some sort of crazy, right wing notion that before we force a worker on employer and employees, we might want to find out whether these employees actually want this union. Card check seems to be a demonstrably inferior way to determine this to secret ballot.
Liberals I talk to on this issue seem to be genuinely unable to believe that I might actually care about process, rather than choosing sides in the union/no union debate. But if you don't care about process--if unions are such an unmitigated good that organisers should be allowed to put social and other pressure on employees to join--then why bother with the NLRB thing at all? Just make a law saying all workers have to join a union, pick a union for each plant, and be done with it.
Opponents claim that employers intimidate potential union members. But much of the intimidation consists of things like saying "The union can't keep me from shutting the plant down", and "the union can't guarantee you higher wages", both of which are true, and I would argue, things that workers should be considering when they mull the possibility of unionising. A union that makes a plant less efficient does increase the risk that that plant will move elsewhere. I know many of the same people who are pushing card check would also like laws preventing people from closing marginallly profitable facilities, but at that point, why do we need the union? Nationalise the thing and conscript management into the forced labour pool.
If employers firing worker organisers is a bigger problem than union organisers threatening social or physical violence to troublemakers--and the evidence for both is so anecdotal, and comes from such questionable sources, that I am not prepared to offer an opinion as to which is the greater problem--then beef up the penalty for firing organisers. But the principal that each worker should be able to vote as to whether he wants to join a union, and be able to make that vote without fear of reprisal, is not worth violating to bump union representation a tenth of a percent.
Let me put it another way. What do pro-union organisers think of card check--and delivering the cards to employers as well as union organisers with no penalty, should the union fail, for firing or otherwise making life miserable for the yes votes? If you think that this is in some way wrong on principle, then how is it not wrong for unions?
my father had union shop he told me if want'n for union he could have paid his workers more and made more himself
Posted by: ron on March 3, 2007 1:02 PMCard check seems to be a demonstrably inferior way to determine this to secret ballot.
Actually, as Kevin Drum noted the other day, there is less intimidation, by both sides, in card-check elections. Therefore, the truth would seem to be exactly the reverse.
If employers firing worker organisers is a bigger problem than union organisers threatening social or physical violence to troublemakers--and the evidence for both is so anecdotal, and comes from such questionable sources, that I am not prepared to offer an opinion as to which is the greater problem
Recent research--not anecdotes--done by Adrienne Eaton finds that employer intimidation is from 3-4 times more frequent, in both card check elections and NLRB elections, than union intimidation--clearly, employer intimidation is the greater problem. That's even before you take into account the fact that employer intimidation is, qualitatively, a greater threat, since employers can fire you, and unions can't.
And as for "just beef up the penalties," well, the penalties are no good if they aren't reliably enforced, and under Republican dominated NLRB's they aren't.
Posted by: Mark on March 3, 2007 1:14 PMThe logic doesn't matter.
Government employees are unionized. And government employment constantly grows.
Government workers are the largest voting block, and union funds are a major source of campaign money.
So overall, despite temporary setbacks, the government will change the laws to what unions want.
Posted by: K on March 3, 2007 2:20 PMMark said "Recent research--not anecdotes--done by Adrienne Eaton finds that employer intimidation is from 3-4 times more frequent, in both card check elections and NLRB elections, than union intimidation--clearly, employer intimidation is the greater problem. That's even before you take into account the fact that employer intimidation is, qualitatively, a greater threat, since employers can fire you, and unions can't."
But a quick look at some of Eaton's work shows a strong pro-union slant, and her conclusion depends on how you define intimidation. The NLRB places severe limits on employer speech, and is nearly totally ineffective in dealing with acts of physical intimidation by union organizers and supporters. Is it intimidation to say that a union can not guarantee higher wages? According to union organizers it surely is.
We would be far better off if union membership were truly voluntary; then a union would have to earn the support of its members.
Posted by: Bill on March 3, 2007 2:41 PMBut a quick look at some of Eaton's work shows a strong pro-union slant
She often reaches conclusions that are favorable to unions, however, that does not inherently constitute slant.
her conclusion depends on how you define intimidation.
Yes, I know, that's Jane's problem with the Eaton/Kriesky research--she wants to take some types of intimidation and remove them from the count. For example, if employers lie to workers and say that unionization will force the business to close--and almost all such claims are lies--she thinks that shouldn't count as intimidation. Sorry, it is intimidation.
The NLRB places severe limits on employer speech
"Severe limits?" Limits that allow employers to force employees to sit through anti-union propaganda sessions? Those "severe" limits?
acts of physical intimidation by union organizers and supporters
What non-anecdotal evidence can you point to that this is a real problem. Even the Heritage Foundation (I read some of their stuff on card check earlier today) has only a handful of anecdotes to wave around on this issue.
Posted by: Mark on March 3, 2007 4:22 PMI think what'd be a better thing to consider is a great deal of deregulation. Unions are bad because it's hard to leave one. If we could easily leave unions that failed to represent our interests, if necessary, easily creating a new one, then I believe unions would be much more valuable and trusted.
There would tend to be 2-3 unions at each office instead of 0-1. Unions hate to give up monopoly powers because of decreased negotiating leverage, but they more often abuse that power than use it constructively.
Right now, only in the most toxic or inherently labor-weak of work environments do people choose unions. And who can blame us, when so many unions are clearly corrupt and fail to represent worker interests well?
This isn't hard. There is no intimidation in the secret ballot voting booth. There is intimidation outside the secret ballot voting booth. To avoid intimidation, have secret ballot voting booths.
Posted by: JohnF on March 3, 2007 6:51 PMThis isn't hard. There is no intimidation in the secret ballot voting booth. There is intimidation outside the secret ballot voting booth. To avoid intimidation, have secret ballot voting booths.
Except, John, that the process that ends with secret ballot voting booths involves a far greater amount of time leading up to the voting booths, and consequently greater opportunity for intimidation during the process as a whole. This is why the evidence I cited previously shows that the card check process involves considerably less intimidation on both sides.
Posted by: Mark on March 3, 2007 7:04 PMYou assert that your interest is in process, but fail to realize that the process of union elections heavily favors management. It's not merely a question of challenging the substantive arguments in favor or against unionization made by the two sides. It's a fact that one of the two sides can hold those arguments anytime it wants during working hours to a "captive audience", i.e. its employees, while the other side has no legal access to the "electorate", i.e. those same employees, except via cold call visits to their homes, which are understandably, indeed, inherently, annoying. Such a process in, by definition, utterly one sided. We certainly wouldn't accept a political campaign run like this, wherein one side can speak to the voters concentrated in one location at will at any time, while the other side cannot--but that's what happens in American union elections. Good process, by your lights?
Moreover, one side signs the checks of this electorate, making its livelyhood dependent upon it. Obviously, this side has a bit more leverage in the process leading up to the election.
Finally, you never ask the question: Why does management even have a say in this decision at all? For a time, in this country, during the late 1930s and early 1940s, the right to "management speech" was not legally codified--only the passage of the Taft Hartley Act in 1947 provided the right of management to inject itself into the decision of its workers as to whether those workers would seek a collective bargaining agent. In almost every other advanced country in the world, management only deals with unions AFTER workers have unilateraly decided, without management coercion or, indeed, any interference at all, whether they wish to join a union. At that point, management commences negotiations with this new designated agent of its workers. You might just as well assume that workers have the right to interfere with management rights to join or not the local Chamber of Commerce, or enter into a contract with particular customer by vociferously campaigning for against these efforts--but most people would think such worker's interference in the affairs of management was preposterous, a per se violation of the rights of private property and capital.
Yet most democratic capitalist nations think that contested union elections are, per se, violations of the rights of workers to choose or not their own forms of self-organization, thus mooting this entire argument about secret ballots or card check.
Go figure.
Posted by: yeselson on March 3, 2007 11:10 PMYeselson said: "...but most people would think such worker's interference in the affairs of management was preposterous, a per se violation of the rights of private property and capital."
Actually, most people in the US would think that what you describe is just a really, really good way to get your ass fired. It has absolutely nothing to do with any "violation of rights", whether of private property, capital (whatever that means) or anything else. Any worker is absolutely free to do the things you described -- they just shouldn't count on staying employed very long if they do so.
Er, except possibly in those other unionized, "advanced" countries you talked about. I understand it can be really hard to get someone off the payroll in those nations, no matter how badly they've screwed with the ongoing operations of your business.
Posted by: DRB on March 3, 2007 11:28 PMWhat non-anecdotal evidence can you point to that this is a real problem.
With secret ballots there's little chance of Pro-Union employees coercing coworkers into voting for a union.
Posted by: Kevin on March 4, 2007 12:32 AMWith secret ballots there's little chance of Pro-Union employees coercing coworkers into voting for a union.
Kevin, I've pointed out more than once in my comments that the evidence shows that there is less coercion from both sides in a card check election. There is less from management, and less from the unions.
Posted by: Mark on March 4, 2007 12:41 AMIt's a fact that one of the two sides can hold those arguments anytime it wants during working hours to a "captive audience", i.e. its employees, while the other side has no legal access to the "electorate", i.e. those same employees, except via cold call visits to their homes, which are understandably, indeed, inherently, annoying.
Isn't management making those arguments on the clock, i.e., paying workers to listen? I doubt the union would have much trouble securing a captive audience under a similar arrangement.
Anyway, why should it be illegal to fire union organizers, given that they're actively working against the interests of the shareholders?
Posted by: Brandon Berg on March 4, 2007 4:44 AMOnly owners and union organizers care about this. Ron's father put his finger on the problem. If unions and management just negotiated about how much of the company's income went to workers or owners, that would be fine. Unfortunately, unions want things that limit productivity.
Whatever the size of the wage pool, unions want it divided equally amongst workers of the same job classification and seniority. That is because each worker's vote in an election of union officers is the same as every other worker's vote. More productive workers cannot outvote less productive workers. The least productive worker will be paid the same as the most productive worker. There is no incentive for productivity, indeed, perhaps there are incentives to be less productive.
Unions want more workers in a union shop. More workers means more dues, means more pay for union leaders. Contract negotiations, when they are not about pay, focus on "work rules" and the union's priority is to freeze or increase the number of workers doing each job. They have no incentive to change work practices in order to improve productivity.
Union leaders and there apologists may say they want greater productivity and a growing economy and you can believe that they are sincere. But at the bargaining table and on the shop floor the incentives all run the other way.
Posted by: jimbo on March 4, 2007 6:57 AMMark,
I've pointed out more than once in my comments that the evidence shows that there is less coercion from both sides in a card check election.
Not to come in here with a generalization with no evidence to support it, but here it goes: "Your "research" is clearly wrong." If having non-anonymous elections really led to less coercion, every democracy in the world (or at least one legitimate democracy) would probably have stumbled on the idea.
And how do they measure total coercion in this "research" anyway? Just a speculation: if there are 100 employees and we don't know how any of them are voting, both sides might put in 1 unit of coercion on each of them for a total of 100 units of coercion. In a card-check vote, we know that, say, 40 employees favor the union and 40 don't favor it. So no one puts any coercion on them at all. But for those last 20 employees, we put 3 units of coercion on each, for a total of 60 units. Total coercion is less as your "research" claims, but I think it's clear that this is really not a better outcome. Being 3 times as coercive to the crucial "swing voters" is not making for a fairer election.
Sorry for the use of "scare quotes" around "research". But whenever I see someone doing what they call research showing something that no one in the real world actually does - demonstrated through reveal preferences, as evidenced in this case by the lack of non-anonymous elections in any democracy - I get skeptical.
Posted by: Josh on March 4, 2007 8:17 AMJosh - you hit the nail on the head.
I too am suspicious whenever someone points to research that goes gainst the grain of how we know people behave.
It's a little like the argument that minimum wage increases don't increase unemployment. Sure, it's possible that some combination of circumstances lead this to be the exception to what is broadly accepted to be a fundamental law of economics (price high = sales low; price low = sales high). But the burden of proof is on the asserter to demonstrate exactly why this is an exception to the rule.
I have to join the pile-on with Josh and gazzer -- the so-called research goes so strongly against logic, intuition and "revealed preferences" that a substantial amount of skepticism seems in order.
As far as I can tell, the only logical reason there might be less perceived coercion in card-check elections comes from the fact that they are apparently much faster than NLRB secret-ballot elections. But the solution to that would be to speed up the secret-ballot elections, not force people to tell everyone else how they voted as occurs through card-check.
Posted by: DRB on March 4, 2007 11:30 AMFor example, if employers lie to workers and say that unionization will force the business to close--and almost all such claims are lies--she thinks that shouldn't count as intimidation. Sorry, it is intimidation.
Since when does someone threatening to do something which they have a perfect legal right to do count as either intimidation or coercion? It strikes me as perfectly reasonable in case of private sector unionization that workers understand that the employer could simple close shop in response.
Posted by: Dave on March 4, 2007 11:51 AM"Your "research" is clearly wrong." If having non-anonymous elections really led to less coercion, every democracy in the world (or at least one legitimate democracy) would probably have stumbled on the idea.
But Josh, Eaton and Kriesky aren't claiming that their finding applies to all elections, just in the specific context of union-management relations in this country. So your "revealed preference" argument isn't a valid rebuttal.
gazzer, this thread isn't about the minimum wage, but I will point out to you, speaking as an economist (and I am one), that there is a solid basis in economic theory for thinking that at least some increases in minimum wages do not reduce employment. Try doing a little research on the term "monopsony" in relation to labor markets.
Posted by: Mark on March 4, 2007 12:16 PMUnfortunately, unions want things that limit productivity.
Here I go again, bringing in research that some people will undoubtedly dismiss as "clearly wrong." There is a substantial body of research on the effect of unions on productivity, and quite a bit of that research, starting with Freeman and Medoff's famous "What Do Unions Do?" indicates that unions in fact increase productivity. Even critics of Freeman /Medoff, like the conservative labor economist Barry Hirsch, are unable to find more than, in Hirsch's own words, "an average union productivity effect near zero."
Posted by: Mark on March 4, 2007 12:26 PMMark beat me to it on the productivity argument. The Freeman/Medoff data has never been rebutted-union shops have greater productivity because workers in unions are generally happier workers because they have representation to address problems in their workplace. Happier workers are, generally, more productive workers and are also, therefore, less prone to high turnover and absenteeism, which would obviously increase management training costs.
What does decrease is company earnings--yes, more goes to workers and less goes to management and shareholders. All studies show that, even today with weakened unions, there is a 30% wage premium at union shops. But, then, that's a big part of what this is about--it's a tug of war over bargaining power. The side that has more of it gets a bigger share of the pie. Management doesn't like it when labor gets a bigger share. The rest of this stuff--union goons, high union salaries (that's a funny one!), etc. etc.--just masks the self-interested rhetoric of companies determined to keep more profits on their side and to give less to their workers. It all depends on where you sit. Once workers figure that out, they support unions--because the corporate class in other advanced, democratic capitalist nations accepts that unions are part of the fabric of democratic capitalism, they don't run these ludicrous, propaganda campaigns vs. unionization. Consequently, the union density % are higher in those countries, and the share of earnings those workers receive--as well as the vacation time and worker safety and health benefits--are substantially higher as well.
So it all sort of gets down to whether you accept that unions are a legitmate part of democratic capitalism or, like, say, the Saudis and the Communist era Eastern Europeans, you think they are an illegitimate institution. It's odd that so many American conservatives apparently agree with Middle Eastern autocrats and Communist totalitarians about the pernicious role of unions. The notion of arbitrary firings discussed by a poster above seems to match well, for example the mindset of the Chinese governments, which fires, imprisons and even still kills workers who oppose government policies and seek independent (as opposed to state controlled) union representation.
Nice going guys.
Posted by: yeselson on March 4, 2007 1:06 PMLeaving aside the issue of who intimidates employees more, Eaton's work seems to draw unwarranted conclusions about card-check vs. secret ballot.
Under the present state of the law, an employer must agree to card-check for it to be used. If and employer is going to agree to this, it is a fair conclusion that the employer is unbothered by the prospect dealing with a union, or the employer knows the result of the election, one way or the other, is certain. In any of these cases, is unlikely that such an employer would take as much or more action fighting the unionization process than employer who has explicitly rejected card-check.
In any case, the real reason union supporters want card-check is that they feel it will be easier to unionize companies. On this, I actually think they are incorrect for the most part. Card-check will not reverse the decline in union membership in the private sector, it will only slow it a bit.
Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 4, 2007 1:11 PMTo Mark and Yeselson,
So, if card check is such an improvement, are you prepared to use it for decertification of unions?
Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 4, 2007 1:22 PMYancy, you suggest one possible, and plausible explanation for at least some of the difference in observed levels of intimidation by management. I'll have to see if there's any empirical work on that issue.
I don't see how your argument addresses the observed difference in levels of intimidation by unions, which for many of the anti card-check folks is the big bogeyman.
Posted by: Mark on March 4, 2007 1:58 PMMark,
I have no resistance to learning (if it's true)that some minimum wage increases might not increase unemployment - I merely used that as an illustration of a larger point that Josh had made. So as to keep the focus on topic here, I'm happy to drop this for a later date.
Yeselson seems to have resorted to the shallow debating trick of finding some bad guy who happens to hold the same views as you (for some entirely different reason).
Yes, yeselson, the Chinese don't like unions. They don't anything that challenges their authority. On the other hand, I would argue (using a broad brush) that conservatives such as Reagan and Thatcher supported the Polish unions in their struggle against communism while many on the left covered their eyes.
Posted by: gazzer on March 4, 2007 2:04 PMMark,
The same argument applies to the case of union intimidation. In those cases that an employer agrees to use card-check, unionization is not a contentious issue. It is far more likely that in in those cases, the employer is unbothered by unionization, or the employer knows he is going to lose. In either of these cases, the union does not need to use much intimidation.
All of your concerns could be addressed by shortening the election process. Why not propose that instead? Also, you did not answer my question: do you support card-check for union decertification?
Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 4, 2007 2:08 PMUnder the present state of the law, an employer must agree to card-check for it to be used.
Just to clarify--the law says that an election is not required if the union gets authorization cards from over 50% of membership, and the employer then voluntary recognizes the union. It does not require the prior consent of the employer to the procedure--your statement is a bit ambiguous, Yancey, and might be interpreted as meaning that.
As for decertification: When I see evidence that the decertification process is as flawed and one-sided as the current representation election process is, I will agree to think about something like a card check procedure for decrtification.
As I said above, I do not support card-check as some sort of universally superior voting method. I support card-check as a reasonable response to the specific, clear shortcomings of the union rperesentation election process. Keep in mind that card-check, or something equivalent, was a legal route to securing representation from 1935-47 until the passage of Taft-Hartley.
Posted by: Mark on March 4, 2007 2:32 PMactually, nobody on the left covered their eyes regarding Polish Solidarity--the AFL-CIO was one of its biggest supporters, as was just about every major leftist and leftist organization I can think of, except the American communist party, for obvious reason.
Leftists support trade unions all over the world, as a bulwark of civil society, and as a leading indicator democratic empowerment for working people against authoritarian regimes--and also as a guarantee in capitalist societies that workers will have a some say in how their own workplaces are run, and they will get fair remuneration.
Rightists only seem to support them instrumentally in cases like the one you cite.
Posted by: yeselson on March 4, 2007 2:49 PMAnd, sure, if, like in Ontario, you had a 5 or 7 day election period, with STRICT COMPANY NEUTRALITY, i.e. no per se defamation vs. the union masquerading as "free speech", you could have meaningful secret ballot election.
But, as I said, most advanced capitalist countries don't even consider the choice of workers whether or not to join a union to be the business of their employer at all--you first have to make a threshold argument as to why we should be so different than rest of the democratic, capitalist world in that regard. It's a workers organization--why does the company insert itself into the worker's business?
Posted by: yeselson on March 4, 2007 2:53 PMyeselson:
>> It's odd that so many American conservatives apparently agree with Middle Eastern autocrats and Communist totalitarians about the pernicious role of unions.
You seem to know so much about Communist totalitarians... not.
"Профсоюзы -- школа коммунизма" [В.И. Ленин]
Rough English translation:
"Unions are a school of Communism" [V.I. Lenin]
Go read the originals then come back. To some of us, the above is enough to make unions far beyond the pale.
Posted by: ...Max... on March 4, 2007 3:32 PMIt's true that under a regime of "you mind your business and we'll mind ours", workers would be able to form a union with no employer involvement at all. But then again, under a regime of "you mind your business and we'll mind ours" management would be entitled to ignore the union if it wanted to. Why shouldn't the company have a say in the election if it's legally compelled to live with the results?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek on March 4, 2007 3:36 PMyou first have to make a threshold argument as to why we should be so different than rest of the democratic, capitalist world in that regard
Man, I hate the argument ad populum (sp?), especially when someone is telling me we have to "make the case" for being different than France. I don't give a flying (*^%$ what they do somewhere else. If it's so obviously superior, you should be able to argue that without resorting to "everyone else does it."
For that matter, if unions are so great for productivity, and also so ubiquitous abroad, it's a wonder the US can compete in the global economy against all those powerhoses.
I have no strong opinions on unionization, although I refused to support the grad student union back when they were trying to get me to join. I do, however, have strong opinions against bad arguments, logical fallacies, and demands that the US look like France.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on March 4, 2007 5:08 PMBut, as I said, most advanced capitalist countries don't even consider the choice of workers whether or not to join a union to be the business of their employer at all--you first have to make a threshold argument as to why we should be so different than rest of the democratic, capitalist world in that regard. It's a workers organization--why does the company insert itself into the worker's business?
If a union were a private organization, like an employee softball team, then it would be "the workers' business." But a union isn't (just) the workers' business, because once it forms, severe restrictions are imposed by law on the employer.
Yes, I know, that's Jane's problem with the Eaton/Kriesky research--she wants to take some types of intimidation and remove them from the count. For example, if employers lie to workers and say that unionization will force the business to close--and almost all such claims are lies--she thinks that shouldn't count as intimidation. Sorry, it is intimidation.
No, it isn't. It's an attempt to persuade. If unions can't win a debate, that says a lot about the value of unionization, not about the process. (If it never happens, by the way, that companies close after unionization, then how intimidating can the statement be?)
But tell you what: if you think card check reduces intimidation, then let's let the company conduct the card check. Let it approach each employee and ask them whether they want to sign a card for a union. Let's see if you really don't think a non-secret ballot is more coercive than a secret ballot.
Posted by: David M. Nieporent on March 4, 2007 7:26 PMCard Check elections resulting in less intimidation than NLRB elections doesn't mean that secret ballots result in more intimidation than open ballots. There are many differences between the two election types. Nothing about Card Check v. NLRB counters the conventional wisdom regarding the superiority of secret ballots. How about fixing the problems with NLRB elections?
Are union workers 30% more productive than non-union workers? If I'm going to invest my capital, why would I invest in a union shop knowing that it will give me lower returns? I have limited funds to invest and am looking forward to retirement at some point. Knowing that union shops have lower returns really discourages me from investing in them. I owe it to my family to make the most of my investments.
The arguments that consist primarily of "most people do it this way" or "bad governments are against unions" are not useful. "liberals" are in agreement with Nazis on gun control. So there. Oops... I Godwined.
EI
"And, sure, if, like in Ontario, you had a 5 or 7 day election period, with STRICT COMPANY NEUTRALITY,"
So your position is that an election can be fair only if one side is prevented from campaining?
Posted by: markm on March 4, 2007 10:39 PMYeselson -
Your argument is silly. "Strict Company Neutrality" indeed.
A union is allowed to make any false promise they choose and the company is not allowed to provide information regarding the falsehoods? The company is not allowed to discuss its own options if its expenses rise due to unionization (which pro-union people have noted above is a fact, to the tune of 30%?)
"It's a workers organization--why does the company insert itself into the worker's business?"
Plain lie.
If it only has a relationship to the workers, then how, pray tell, does it plan to negotiate with management?
Management does not care if the workers all join the Moose Lodge. Fraternal organizations are real organizations of the type that you pretend unions are. Therefore management really has no opinions on the matter of employees joining fraternal organizations.
A union is an organization that will insert itself between management and workers, siphoning off money from both.
In addition, unions give large amounts of money to one side of the political process (Democrats), regardless of the desires of the union employees, and fight accountability of their finances.
Big unions are big business, but without Sarbanes Oxley.
Posted by: Twill00 on March 5, 2007 8:26 AMJane's Difference Principle is that social and economic changes in society are justified only if they benefit the affluent. All the rest is commentary.
Posted by: Stan on March 5, 2007 8:56 AMIn re card check, Ezra Klein says "Well, workplaces are not a democracy, so why should I care about secret ballots?" Well, yes, they aren't. But last time I looked, our country was.
I would point out that shareholders vote by secret ballot only at a minority of corporations. Is the proprietress ready to require a universal secret ballot for shareholders?
Posted by: alkali on March 5, 2007 9:01 AMOh yes, you have convinced me that the Republicans and business are for this change in legislation out of the goodness of their hearts and belief in universal freedom.
Now, tell me why you really think they support this legislation and all the claims you are making are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: spencer on March 5, 2007 9:15 AMMany of my commenters seem not to see any distinction between a system forced upon employers and employees by the power of the state, and a voluntary arrangement undertaken without coercion by freely associating parties. For the record, I do not care how the West Middleton Homeowner's Association votes on whether to install begonias or azaleas in the yards, or any other private operation. Nor does this seem particularly relevant.
Posted by: Jane Galt on March 5, 2007 9:43 AM1) I'm fine with secret shareholder ballots,
2) But I don't see the point of them, given that it's nearly impossible for the average shareholder to suffer retaliation from anyone, unlike with union elections.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on March 5, 2007 10:34 AMCommentators are referring to "intimidation" on the management side and the labor side as if it were equal.
Sorry, but threatening to close the plant is not the same as slashed tires or a photograph of a person's children waiting for the school bus.
Other than Silkwood in 1974, I am not aware of many cases where Management is alleged to have assaulted or threatened employees for anything.
Posted by: bristlecone on March 5, 2007 2:14 PMYeselson said: It's a workers organization--why does the company insert itself into the worker's business?
First, what Twill said.
Second, "workers" are the company's business, are they not?
Third, do you suggest allowing the company to fire the lot of them and bring in a new non-unionized workforce at the same factory, as many times as it takes for the union organization to fail?
(If, after all, the workers and the company are entirely separate concerns, I don't see why not... but then again, I think they ought to be able to do that anyway, since I'm quite happily and openly an anti-unionist.)
(Plus what EI said. That a majority of democracies do something is no argument that it's superior or correct - just that it's popular among them.
The majority of democracies don't have an equivalent of the US' Second Amendment, or even the hard protections of the First. Why should we be required to justify those additional rights simply because Europe doesn't think they're important?)
Posted by: Sigivald on March 5, 2007 2:28 PMPro card-checkers, please explain to me how employers intimidate workers in a secret ballot system. And, define "intimidate" for me. Sounds like you consider an employer making arguments against a union during the election campaign to be "intimidation". How do you "intimidate" someone into voting against the union in a secret ballot? The ballots are collected and counted by an NLRB rep.
Posted by: Brian on March 5, 2007 4:20 PMJane Galt writes:
For the record, I do not care how the West Middleton Homeowner's Association votes on whether to install begonias or azaleas in the yards, or any other private operation. Nor does this seem particularly relevant.
Corporations are creatures of law no less than unions. You can't form one without going into a state government office, nor can a corporation meaningfully access the capital markets without dealing with the SEC. There's no meaningful distinction.
Rob Lyman writes:
I'm fine with secret shareholder ballots, [b]ut I don't see the point of them, given that it's nearly impossible for the average shareholder to suffer retaliation from anyone, unlike with union elections.
The "average" shareholder, in practice, is a money manager who doesn't want to tick a potential client or anyone else off. For that reason, the SEC required mutual funds to disclose how they voted their shares in 2003.
Of course, there are good reasons that money manager stockholders should not be permitted to keep their votes secret. But that only serves to illustrate that the "principle" of secret ballot may not make sense in the economic realm. Is it really true, for example, that workers who favor a union couldn't have any legitimate reason at all for knowing which of their co-workers are opposed to a union?
bristlecone writes:
Other than Silkwood in 1974, I am not aware of many cases where Management is alleged to have assaulted or threatened employees for anything.
What employers do is fire workers who try to organize unions. A reasonable estimate is that 1 in 5 worker organizers can expect to be fired for their union activity, and about a thousand people are fired each year for union organizing. [Source: CEPR 2007.]
If you want to see some examples of this, just look at some recent decisions of the NLRB: http://www.nlrb.gov/research/decisions/board_decisions/index.aspx (search for the word "discharging")
It is certainly true that there are cases of intimidation by union organizers and pro-union workers. Whether it is the right judgment to prohibit the most efficient means of union organizing because of concerns about pro-union intimidation surely ought to depend, at least in part, on how prevalent that intimidation is, what kind of anti-union intimidation employers are able to exercise, and the impact of prohibiting that method of organizing on the bargaining power of workers.
(Incidentally, Silkwood is not about union organizing -- you may be thinking of Norma Rae.)
Posted by: alkali on March 5, 2007 5:43 PM"A union mentality is where too many people do too little work for too much money, and then go on strike, in order to get more days off." -Frank Zappa.
None of this card-check crap is about making life better for workers. It's only about expanding the socio-economic power of leftist meglomaniacs.
Posted by: John on March 5, 2007 5:44 PMIs it really true, for example, that workers who favor a union couldn't have any legitimate reason at all for knowing which of their co-workers are opposed to a union?
Ok. Name one.
The "average" shareholder, in practice, is a money manager who doesn't want to tick a potential client or anyone else off.
So, imagine I work at Fidelity running a mutual fund. I dislike what incumbant management is doing for some reason and want to vote for an alternative slate of directors. What, exactly, are they going to do to me?
Posted by: Rob Lyman on March 5, 2007 9:00 PM"Unions are Big Business, without Sarbanes Oxley"?
Actually the disclosure requirements that the Bush Administration imposed on unions in 2004 are arguably more intrusive than Sarbanes Oxley.
Unions, for example, are required to disclose the salary of every single person who works for the organization, from the president of the national union to the woman who answers the phones at the local union hall.
They are also required to disclose, I believe, every single expenditure over $5,000.
And I've been involved in businesses and a member of a union. It sure seemed to me like there was a lot more voting going on -- both with ballots and in the open with voice votes and by showing of hands -- in the union than there ever were in a business. Depending on the union, union members vote for the officers of their union, to approve their contracts or reject them, to go on strike or not, to raise or not raise their dues, and over many other matters.
Posted by: Brendan Sexton on March 5, 2007 9:24 PM"Many of my commenters seem not to see any distinction between a system forced upon employers and employees by the power of the state, and a voluntary arrangement undertaken without coercion by freely associating parties."
Um.
Why is a free association created by a card check any more or less voluntary than a free association created by a secret ballot? You voluntarily sign the cards, you get enough cards, you get collective bargaining.
Looks free to me.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 5, 2007 10:15 PMOpponents claim that employers intimidate potential union members. But much of the intimidation consists of things like saying "The union can't keep me from shutting the plant down", and "the union can't guarantee you higher wages", both of which are true, and I would argue, things that workers should be considering when they mull the possibility of unionising.
"Sign this card or the Local will break your legs" is also true and also something the workers should mull over as they make their choice.
Seriously. You can't possibly be this simpletonian and hold the credentials you claim elsewhere on this blog. Or perhaps you're simply so utterly detached from the reality of genuine working-class life that you don't get it.
The life-destroying economic blackmail you seem to so blithely defend is actually more traumatic and your imaginary, fictional, counter-factual and hallucinatory Union goon with a baseball bat is less feared by real families with real real paycheck-to-paycheck problems than the prospect of losing their job.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 5, 2007 10:29 PMAs for the whole union-productivity debate, when I buy a new house (sometime when real estate prices are bottoming out in 2010 or so) I know that I will be looking for one built by a company that used unionized workers to build it.
Do you "unions decrease productivity" people still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Ayn Rand?
Posted by: mrjauk on March 5, 2007 10:50 PM
You guys are arguing about apples when the real issue is oranges.
The fundamental failure here is that everyone is arguing from a shared understanding of "secret" elections based on the US electoral system. In fact, the NLRB election does NOT resemble a free and fair secret election. Yes, there is employer intimidation and lies that would not be permitted in the political sphere. Yes, the actual secrecy of the vote is often compromised. Yes, yes and yes - the whole process is different than in a "real" election. But that's not the worst of it.
If the union "election" is compromised by the employer the remedy takes years - even decades in some cases - with the penalty being a re-election where the perpetrator of the fraud gets to run again. In the real election system a fraud-ridden candidate is in jail.
If the union "election" is compromised by unlawful activity, the worst penalty the company pays - after time, money and tears are spent by the harmed persons - is back pay. In the real election system, unlawful activity is punished by financial penalties and/or jail time.
In my view, unions are pursuing the card check alternative as provided for in the law as the path of least resistance. Implementing actual, true secret elections with consequences would run against the weight of decades of precedent at the NLRB and would be opposed by anti-union employers at least as harshly as is the card check system.
I'd be for secret and fair elections if the system actually provided for that. Since the real system that is in place today does not allow secret elections with the winner being actually, you know, elected, I'm for card checks.
Posted by: 22state on March 5, 2007 11:05 PMActually, maybe secret ballots do lead to more "intimidation" Please see our elections where Democrats scare voters by saying the GOP wants to cut programs and where the GOP scares voters by saying the Dems want to raise their taxes.
Any company that does not explain to its employees that by unionizing they are helping to make that new plant in China more attractive than keeping their plant open is frankly not being fair to the workers. Or more likely, they are making the Chinese competitor in China or the Japanese non-union plant more competitive.
And if union plants are empirically more productive, why don't we see Toyota unionizing? Why don't we see bosses in China forcing their employees to unionize? Don't these people know what's good for their business?
22state: And in the real election system, there aren't even allegations that one side is saying, "vote for me or get your legs broken."
Posted by: markm on March 6, 2007 7:50 AMRob Lyman writes:
So, imagine I work at [mutual fund company X] running a mutual fund. I dislike what incumbant management is doing for some reason and want to vote for an alternative slate of directors. What, exactly, are they going to do to me?
Pull their pension portfolios from your investment management company, costing you millions in management fees. (Remember that some of the directors you are voting against are probably CEOs of other companies; they could also pull their money management business from your firm.)
Posted by: alkali on March 6, 2007 9:35 AMAlkali
That's certainly possible...but that's a pretty expensive move, and not one to endear you to the (limited, incestuous) number of management companies capable of handling a big corporate pension plan. If a mutual fund is rebelling against management, there's probably a good reason, and everyone probably knows it.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on March 6, 2007 10:01 AM"I would point out that shareholders vote by secret ballot only at a minority of corporations. Is the proprietress ready to require a universal secret ballot for shareholders?"
These situations are not really comparable, and a comparison between them is misleading. Coercion isn't nearly as present - primarily because the voters have far fewer levers in a shareholder vote. Ownership interest in the company cannot be revoked by the majority, and the self-interest of all parties involved dictates that running the company into the ground as reprisal for a dissenting vote would be foolish, though amusing to observe.
Posted by: Daniel Bauman on March 6, 2007 11:07 AMAnd if union plants are empirically more productive, why don't we see Toyota unionizing?
More simpletonianism.
Because "Productivity" and "profit-maximizing" are not synonymous.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 6, 2007 11:44 AMI missed this reply to me by Rob Lyman:
"Is it really true, for example, that workers who favor a union couldn't have any legitimate reason at all for knowing which of their co-workers are opposed to a union?"
Ok. Name one.
They don't want to share organizing strategy with a person opposed to organizing who will pass the information along to management.
Posted by: alkali on March 6, 2007 1:38 PMAlkali,
Thanks. That strikes me as a weak reason in this context given that the whole notion here is that the cards get passed out and handed back in quickly and at what I would think was the end, rather than the beginning, of the process. In other words, if you have a management mole, you won't know about him until after the fate of your efforts is already more or less sealed.
Posted by: Rob Lyman on March 6, 2007 2:17 PMThat's not really how a card check works -- there isn't a process that officially begins at some point in time. It's more like a petition drive: once you have cards from a majority of employees, you notify the NLRB, and if they sign off you're done.
Posted by: alkali on March 6, 2007 3:22 PMFrom Wikipedia: "(P)roductivity is the amount of output created (in terms of goods produced or services rendered) per unit input used."
Thus, statements such as:
Because "Productivity" and "profit-maximizing" are not synonymous.
and
Mark beat me to it on the productivity argument. The Freeman/Medoff data has never been rebutted-union shops have greater productivity because workers in unions are generally happier workers because they have representation to address problems in their workplace. Happier workers are, generally, more productive workers and are also, therefore, less prone to high turnover and absenteeism, which would obviously increase management training costs.
What does decrease is company earnings--yes, more goes to workers and less goes to management and shareholders. All studies show that, even today with weakened unions, there is a 30% wage premium at union shops.
seem to miss the point. Obviously, if I spend more money on production I expect to increase my output. If I buy more machines, for example, or hire more workers at any wage, I would expect total production to increase.
The question is, do input dollars spent on a unionized workforce have a greater effect on output than input dollars spent on capital goods or on a larger (albeit lower-paid) workforce?
Posted by: Bombadil on March 6, 2007 4:32 PMThat's not really how a card check works -- there isn't a process that officially begins at some point in time.
Yes, and-- more to the point-- there isn't a process that officially ends at some point in time if the pro-union votes aren't there. I would guess that this, rather than the possibility of goonery, is the main appeal: it lets the organizers run the certification like an EU election. The workers keep voting until they get it right.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek on March 6, 2007 5:15 PMThe question is, do input dollars spent on a unionized workforce have a greater effect on output than input dollars spent on capital goods or on a larger (albeit lower-paid) workforce?
Well, that's your question. It's not the question asked earlier that I replied to:
And if union plants are empirically more productive, why don't we see Toyota unionizing?
To answer your question: Who cares?
Since Labor as an input is qualitatively distinct from every other input, trying to rationalize the question as an input/output function is doomed to fail.
How many goddamn frustrating arguments must you have had in your life about the theory of the minimum wage? Got a working class uncle or a couple of working class cousins that never seemed to "get it"?
Maybe at some point in your life you'll "get" that it's you that doesn't "get it."
jfxgillis,
Watch your mouth about assuming I am not from a working class family myself.
So, the argument must be:
A union factory is more productive but the increased costs often make it less profitable than a non-unionized factory.
This would explain why companies would prefer non-unionized plants.
The problem is that if the costs exceed the increased productivity, it also means their competitiveness is reduced versus non-unionized plants, as those plants can lower their prices as long as they are willing to earn about the same amount of profit as the union plant owner.
I see this as part of my job where many Chinese owned factories in China are cheaper than foreign owned factories in China simply because they are willing to make less profit.
There may also be another reason union plants are more productive: the management faced with high labor costs simply must use them very efficiently and outsource a lot to even try to compete. If I raise your household's electricity rate to double your neighbors, should I be surprised that your house ends up being more efficient and less wasteful with power?
Posted by: Aaron on March 7, 2007 3:23 AMI don't see why the "unions hurt productivity" is grouped with Santa Clause.
For me to accept that unions increase productivity, or long-term compensation, I would have to accept the general premise that "Threatening current and potential clients to actively impede work progress en masse regardless of the clients' desire to continue working with me, will increase the amount I can charge for my services."
In that context, it's clear, and it still recognizes the "qualitative difference" of the labor factor. It's just that the union crowd refuses to recognize risk as a cost.
Posted by: Person on March 7, 2007 9:59 AM"The life-destroying economic blackmail [of companies threatening to close if the company doesn't unionize] you seem to so blithely defend is actually more traumatic and your imaginary, fictional, counter-factual and hallucinatory Union goon with a baseball bat is less feared by real families with real real paycheck-to-paycheck problems than the prospect of losing their job."
The threat by a company to close cannot be applied only to those voters who supported a union; it must be applied to supporters and opponents alike so it should do little to influence a vote per say as individual pressure. The possibility of a plant closing as an eventual result of disequilibriously high wages and inflexible work rules is indeed something that those who vote for a union should consider. Tire slashing can be selectively applied. I have no problem with unions holding mass meetings where they promise great things, even those that they can't deliver [but I hope the workers ask hard questions when this happens], but they can do this in a run-up to a secret ballot as well.
Disclaimer: I've been there. I worked for a contract programming company once, and this was in the days when computers actually cost money so I worked on site. The company had a union. When they declared a strike, the union asked us to stop writing our software while the strike was on. We refused. The company asked us to do the union workers' jobs while the strike was on -- they would pay us and adjust our deadlines. We refused that too. So we went in every day and moved our project one day closer to completion. Those who drove to work ran a gauntlet as the union members pounded on the hoods of the cars and occasionally scratched them and screamed threats. I, who ride a bicycle, thought I was in better shape because I could carry my bike through the hedge surrounding the parking lot. One day I came out to find both tires slashed.
I suppose violence against property doesn't count to some people. Still, it can be individually applied.
"'Is it really true, for example, that workers who favor a union couldn't have any legitimate reason at all for knowing which of their co-workers are opposed to a union?'
Ok. Name one.
They don't want to share organizing strategy with a person opposed to organizing who will pass the information along to management."
The ballot vrs. card check occurs at the end of the process. It's my understanding that once a union is formed, even those who opposed to the union are to be welcomed as "brothers". Is this going to go away if we go to card-check-only? Aside from causing unionizations that the workers wouldn't actually vote for if they were to vote in privacy, loss of this solidarity would be another sad side-effect of card-check certification.
I do have one question. How clearly would it be explained to hourly workers who I assume to be used to a card check being only a call for a representation election, that the rules are changed and that they shouldn't sign card checks as casually as voters in states with voter-originated initiatives sign initiative petitions?
-dk
Aaron:
I was mouthing off to "bombadil," I thought. But in case you either took the second-person as plural and included yourself, which is okay, or if you are also bombadil, which is also okay, then congratulations because you finally actually asked what really is "the" question, although strangely enough, no question mark:
A union factory is more productive but the increased costs often make it less profitable than a non-unionized factory.
Now you appear to be smart enough not to go through the whole rigamarole of point-counterpoint. For instance, when you say "their competitiveness is reduced versus non-unionized plants," I say the obvious answer is to unionize that plant, too. We can go on like that literally forever.
But in the final analysis, it boils down to: Profits or Wages. If you make your living at wages, you want wages maximized. If you make your living on profits, you want profits maximized.
Unless you can demonstrate why profits's claims are morally superior wages's, this is all a tussle over self-interest.
So the crap about "democratic process" is crap. The crap about "productivity" is crap. All the "principle" invoked on this thread is all crap except the part where we actually slice up the pie: Who gets what piece.
dk:
If you are making an argument from moral principle, it seems to me the communal threat "You'll all lose you jobs if ..." is more reprensible than the specific threat "I'll break your legs if ..." (Notwithstanding the claim I made earlier, which is that workers would prefer the shattered bones to the job loss in any event).
I can see a reason productivity might rise with unionization in some sectors.
It's because, with the problems unions present, it's mostly companies with jobs everybody wants to do, like entertainment, or low-end service jobs.
In both cases, the incentives are lacking for management to treat employees well, and the result shows in unionization. Unionized companies are forced to treat their employees better, which will tend to result in higher retention rates. Employees who've been around longer will do better jobs and be more productive.
But I can't see that applying at, say, Intel's chip design workforce. For one thing, Intel already treats its chip designers well because it knows it's dealing with very complicated skills. For another thing, the record of monopoly unions is unencouraging - just exactly how would make-work work rules or strict seniority systems help with high-end design jobs?
The Pentium's excellent and company-saving design was organized by a newly minted Ph.D fresh out of CMU, who basically traded his life for that chip. Would he have worked so hard if he'd been under a strict seniority system?
Posted by: Jon Kay on March 7, 2007 3:13 PM"I can see a reason productivity might rise with unionization in some sectors.
It's because, with the problems unions present, it's mostly companies with jobs everybody wants to do, like entertainment, or low-end service jobs.
In both cases, the incentives are lacking for management to treat employees well, and the result shows in unionization."
OK, let's stipulate that there are shops that "should" be unionized, perhaps because the people are being treated poorly, so a majority under sober reflection would vote for a union even if they were voting with nobody watching them.
How does that justify changing the election rules so that in other shops, those where the proposed union can't get a majority vote unless the ballots go one way only and are filled out in the presence of organizers, also unionize? The whole reason for Mr. Kay's assertion that unionization is correct is that its correctness is evident, in which case the union should be pleased to stand for a secret ballot.
-dk
I was a military brat - does that count as working class?
A union factory is more productive but the increased costs often make it less profitable than a non-unionized factory.
This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. What do you mean, productivity goes up but costs increase? How do you reconcile that statement with the definition of productivity - "(P)roductivity is the amount of output created (in terms of goods produced or services rendered) per unit input used ? Do per unit costs increase? If they do, then productivity has not increased, it has declined. If per unit costs decrease, why should profit decline? If it is cheaper per unit for me to produce widgets using union labor, why would that possibly decrease my profits?
Instead of questioning my "street cred", or casting aspersions at my family, why don't you try addressing the point?
Posted by: Bombadil on March 7, 2007 6:35 PMBombadil:
Now I'm confused. Somebody else already took offense as the supposed aspersions on your family. Although, actually, they weren't aspersions on whoever's family was referenced. Why would suggesting the existence of a working class uncle or a couple of cousins be an aspersion on the family? As a matter of fact, the aspersion was on you since I hypothesized that they'd "get" something that you don't.
The comparison I think people are reaching for is productivty corrected for wages, that is: For the imput half of the formula, calculate using man-hours rather than wages. If you then substitute dollar costs for man hours, then some (debatable) portion (perhaps all) of the increase in wages won by Collective bargaining is offset by an increase in productivity per man-hour.
Having said that, it's crap, as I said earlier. That's because the person earning the wage doesn't care if the increase in costs does not fully offset the increase in productivity, so long as the company is above breakeven. All they care about is that they got a raise.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 7, 2007 7:15 PMjfxgillis - It is very clear that you are confused.
The aspersion is that I must have had many goddamned frustrating arguments with family members who were working-class, presumably because either (1) I am a blue-blood elitist who cannot argue rationally, or (2) my working-class family members are drudging dullards who cannot argue rationally.
Having said that, it's crap, as I said earlier. That's because the person earning the wage doesn't care if the increase in costs does not fully offset the increase in productivity, so long as the company is above breakeven. All they care about is that they got a raise.
Workers who don't care whether or not their company makes a profit find their jobs going to others. And what possible motivation would a business owner have for unionizing if, as you apparently admit, the per unit costs of production increase with unionization and the union workers don't give a shit about it?
My personal experience with open, partially unionized shops - I spent a summer running stripping machines which produced stamped metal parts. I was working as a temp in the shop, for minimum wage.
I always had to keep a close eye on the union workers in the shop, who would do such fun things as disconnecting the grounding strap from my de-burring belt (which creates a tremendous buildup of static electricity and a resultant zap of considerable power) because they resented my working there. They would hide my gloves, throw away my lunch, and throw heavy pieces of scrap at me when I wasn't looking. I was 18 and almost completely broke, and didn't give a shit about unions or union politics. Gotta love those union heroes.
Bombadil:
Not assertions. Both questions, although admittedly the first question included an embedded premise, that you had had "goddamn frustrating arguments" about the minimum wage. Since I've never met a libertarian/free-market type who has not had such arguments, I suppose you might be the first.
But I doubt it.
And, again, if your relations argued the way I speculated might be attributed to them, that doesn't make them drudging dullards who can't argue. It makes them right. Only if they did not argue with you, i.e., if they agreed with you, would they be drudging dullards.
For an example of drudging dullness this rejoinder is most excellent:
Workers who don't care whether or not their company makes a profit find their jobs going to others.
How is that rebut:
That's because the person earning the wage doesn't care if the increase in costs does not fully offset the increase in productivity, so long as the company is above breakeven.
What part of "above breakeven" did you not understand?
And what possible motivation would a business owner have for unionizing if, as you apparently admit, the per unit costs of production increase with unionization and the union workers don't give a shit about it?
I did not apparently admit that. In fact, I distinctly allowed for the possiblity that per unit costs could be the same if the increase in productivity offset the increase in wages.
If you'd like me to explain the problems you had that Summer on the stripping machines, I'll be happy to do so. Sir: You were undercutting their wages and they were pissed off about that. They probably should've directed their anger more at managment than at poor little you, but the President of the company wasn't there all day to throw scrap at, and besides, if they'd thrown scrap at the company President they'd have been fired.
Bombadil,
I am also confused...if productivity of labor is increased as much as wages are, then by definition it should not matter to owners if their plant is union or not. But they are claiming somehow that it reduces profits, so I could only guess they are talking about overall productivity instead of just labor's.
Since I believe that competition and economic freedom are forces for good, I would say that unions should not be allowed in any plants. Wages are essentially a worker's profits on his labor. Why should these be protected and be artificially high while a business owner who risks his capital has no such benefit of artificial price supports / job protection?
Posted by: Aaron on March 7, 2007 9:26 PM"You were undercutting their wages and they were pissed off about that."
My competition undercuts my prices all the time. Should I burn down their factory? Who should I complain to about their vile practices?
LOL.
Posted by: Aaron on March 7, 2007 9:30 PMShould I burn down their factory?
I wouldn't advise it. They probably have insurance and they'll get a bright shiny new plant out the deal with all kinds of new efficiencies that'll undercut you even more.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 7, 2007 9:53 PMHow does that justify changing the election rules so that in other shops, those where the proposed union can't get a majority vote unless the ballots go one way only and are filled out in the presence of organizers, also unionize? The whole reason for Mr. Kay's assertion that unionization is correct is that its correctness is evident, in which case the union should be pleased to stand for a secret ballot.
Speaking of things apparently evident, how on earth did you come up with the idea that I was for changing union election rules? You seem to've confused me with somebody else.
>
I think the big problem here with regards to productivity and unions relates to the definition of productivity.
If productivity is defined as the hourly unit output per worker, then it is possible that better paid, happier union workers exhibit higher unit-based productivity.
If, however, productivity is defined as the dollar value of output per dollar of costs, then the 30% higher paid union workers are extremely unlikely to exhibit higher dollar-based productivity.
I challenge anyone to explain why employers would choose to pay workers 30% less to do their jobs if the dollar-measured productivity of their business would be higher if they paid 30% more. In the long run, it is only dollar-based productivity that is relevant, since in the long run all costs are marginal and new investments in high dollar productivity industries/regions/countries can be made to replace depreciated investments in low dollar productivity industries/regions/countries.
Thus, unions can, do, and in fact have actively worked against the long-term interests of all workers by ostensibly working for the short-term interests of some workers.
This conclusion:
Thus, unions can, do, and in fact have actively worked against the long-term interests of all workers by ostensibly working for the short-term interests of some workers.
does not neccessarily follow from this premise:
In the long run, it is only dollar-based productivity that is relevant, since in the long run all costs are marginal and new investments in high dollar productivity industries/regions/countries can be made to replace depreciated investments in low dollar productivity industries/regions/countries.
because one simply has to ensure that Labor is organized in those new high-dollar-productivity industries, regions and countries.
Moreover, why should a worker care about the long-term interests of all workers when the short term interests of some means higher wages for the some who unionize?
You're libertarian when firms prefer short-term maximizing but against it when workers prefer it?
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 8, 2007 4:52 PMbecause one simply has to ensure that Labor is organized in those new high-dollar-productivity industries, regions and countries.
Unless unionization is mandatory, everywhere, there will always be a worker who wants a job and is willing to compete on wages to get it.
Are you advocating that no individual (i.e. non-unionized) worker be allowed to compete in the job market?
Posted by: Bombadil on March 8, 2007 8:18 PMUnless unionization is mandatory, everywhere ....
There's a plan.
Glad we could reach some common ground finally.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 8, 2007 8:23 PMSure thing, comrade. Let's start executing the kulaks right away.
You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, eh?
At least your position is finally clear - individual liberty is for chumps.
Posted by: Bombadil on March 9, 2007 12:37 PMDepends on whose eggs are being broken.
You like it when Pinkertons break Trades Unionist' eggs, I like when the Trades Unionists scabs' eggs.
The only difference is that you cloak yourself in the mantle of some high falutin' false principle and I don't.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 9, 2007 1:54 PMYou like it when Pinkertons break Trades Unionist' eggs, I like when the Trades Unionists scabs' eggs.
Bzzt! Nope, but thanks for playing.
I in no way believe that unions should be illegal. I think workers have every right to attempt to bargain collectively, just as management has every right to attempt to refuse to bargain with them.
If either side employs extralegal means (the breaking of eggs) they should be prosecuted.
You have shown your true colors with that statement - workers have no right to work outside of unions (if they try you'll break their ... eggs), and employers have no right to decide who they will employ.
Which remaining elements of your political philosophy are distinguishable from fascism? Because I can't think of any.
Posted by: Bombadil on March 9, 2007 2:15 PMWell, I had assumed the exchange had drifted into bantering, but if you'd like to return to seriousness ...
To encourage profits, the state grants the privilege that allows managment to combine as a limited-liability corporation.
To encourage wages, the state has a moral duty to grant workers the privilege of combining so as to bargain collectively for wages.
If an LLC wants to exist, it should not also be allowed by the state to resist collective bargaining if the workers choose to combine.
You posit a level playing field that does not exist.
Posted by: jfxgillis on March 9, 2007 6:58 PM