Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Straight From the Horse's... Other End


You gotta love it:
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace is committed to reviewing proposals based on the merits, the soundness of the policy and the practical implications of each suggestion. We remain concerned that any offer for compromise under the guise of "reform" will morph into an anti-worker Trojan horse where the undemocratic card-check scheme and the job-killing binding interest arbitration provision are adopted as amendments.
The crocodile tears splash down like rain.... oh, the poor workers....

Is there a word of truth in there, other than their recitation of their name... which, of itself, is intentionally misleading? It would be so difficult to tell the truth here, that "The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" is a coalition of businesses that would prefer not to have union workers, and opposes any measures that would make it more likely that their workers will unionize?

7 comments:

  1. The fact that they are biased, hiding behind a silly name, and are "Horse' . . .Other Ends" does't mean that they don't have at least one valid point.

    By pretty much any measure it is "less democratic" to have "open voting" then it is to have seceret ballots. Especially when you start out with the seceret ballot and the side that isn't winning enough elections (in their opinion) decides to do away with the old system and go with one where it is a "lot" easier to have bullying and put pressure on individual voters.

    CWD

    ReplyDelete
  2. You've been alive how long, and you still believe that somewhere, buried in the definition of "democracy", there's a requirement of fair elections? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course I do, I was talking about "democratic" not "Democratic" elections. : )

    CWD

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, CWD, what they want is a system where the bullying and pressure on individual voting workers is limited to the employer.

    Every employer knows that the simplest way to stop a union is to fire the organizers. You might get a finger-wagging from the NLRB a few years down the road, but the rest of your employees get the message.

    The *smartest* way to avoid unionization is to be such a good boss that your employees say "What the hell do we need a union for?" But that's, like, hard and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What organized labor wants is to increase the number of people covered by CBAs and to push for legislation requiring that any shop that unionizes becomes a "closed shop." You don't have to join the union, but you have to pay the dues if you want to work there. All they care about is increasing the amount of money and power they control . . . just like their counterparts on the manaagement side of the house.

    I'm not disputing your comments about employer ULPs. I just don't think that the union officials are any better. I also resent the idea that we are going to try to "improve" the situation by making it easier for the union to bully workers rather than try to do something to make management comply with NLRB rules.

    CWD

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not a 'closed shop' if employees are free to stay out of the union, and only have to pay the portion of union dues that go toward paying for the benefit of the CBA. Otherwise you create a situation where nobody joins the union because a) they get all the bennies from it if there is a union and b) hey, I don't want MY ass fired if the boss finds out we're talking union.

    I certainly don't have rose-colored glasses about unions, but I don't really see a Designated Interference Period by employers as the only thing between employees and thuggish unions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "It's not a closed shop if employees are free to stay out of the union, and only have to pay the portion of union dues that go toward paying for the benefit of the CBA"

    Technically, you are correct, what I described is an "agency shop" not a "closed shop."

    Semantics aside, I disagree with your characterization of the mandatory dues. My recollection is that the calculus involved doesn't deal with calculating the "benefit of the CBA". The "mandatory" payment is the full union dues less whatever the union certifies was used for certain excluded political purposes.

    To your list of reasons that people might choose not to join a union or pay "dues by any other name", I would add, "choice."

    CWD

    ReplyDelete