Skip to comments.Mickey Kaus: "Card Check" Not as Bad as Thought! It's Worse.
Posted on 02/28/2009 6:07:09 PM PST by GOPGuide
In the "card check" bill, if a newly unionized employer can't reach an agreement with the new union, an arbitrator will step in and impose a two-year contract. I thought Jennifer Rubin must be wrong when she said that this arbitrator would be a government employee:
But it turns out Rubin is right. Or at least she might be right. The arbitration parts of the card check bill are so vaguely drawn that nobody knows who the arbitrators will be. The job of appears to be delegated entirely to the Federal Mediation Service. The FMS might decide to use its own employees. It might decide to use arbitrators from the private sector selected along more traditional lines. The two breakfast debaters (Prof. Richard Epstein and attorney Anthony Segall) did seem to agree that, since thousands of arbitrators might quickly be needed for the expected explosion of mandatory arbitration, it's unlikely they would all be newly hired GS-12s. But they don't know.
3) I have been worried that big business would sell out small business in the coming negotiations on a "compromise," watered-down "card check" bill that everyone expects. Prof. Epstein suggested that, if anything, big business is more terrified of the arbitration provisions than small business--simply because big businesses are more complicated and therefore theyy have a lot more to lose if an unfamiliar arbitrator suddenly steps in and starts messing around and running things. ... P.S.: But doesn't that suggest another possible sell out, in which the arbitration provisions of "card check" get dropped while the more notorious anti-secret ballot provisions stay in? I don't know. If you are Wal-Mart or Toyota I would think you'd be threatened by both provisions. 5:11 P.M.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Dude, where’s my economy!
Bingo....and one named “Don Corleone” would know....
Not if Obama appoints former ACORN activists to head the arbitration committees!
That was then and this is now! These are the same people who will try to reinstate the "fairness" doctrine.
... What’s it called when someone steps in to meddle in every affair of your working or living? Is it tyranny?
I can see this ending well. [/sarc]
The zero will be appointing the arbitrators. Who do you think they will side with then?
When someone like GEORGE McGOVERN comes out against it, YOU KNOW it’s bad.
The company. They'll be bought off.
I was a member of unions for may years and I know the game.
(And I'm against card check by the way.)
Most companies will welcome a union so they can pay their
employees less money. Although they may have to dish out
a little bribe money for union officials.
They will no longer have to award workers for productivity
while still imposing the same and perhaps even greater production standards.
Any word on how this plays out in right to work states?
If he cant drive them all out of business then he will unionize the ones left.
Why would any experienced person want to risk their time and money with this cornice overhanging their hard and honest efforts ?
Answer : few, if any will.
Vehicles with pro-union bumper stickers become an insurance company's worst nightmare.
What are you talking about? I had a construction business for many years and we and fellow owners all had to pay way more than our non-union competitors. And it was also cheaper for the employees to be non-union because of the dues and the fact that their benefits were theirs from day one. Many a union man lost all the benefits we paid into the union funds because he didn't last long enough as a union member to qualify for the rights to those benefits. I heard many stories about what the unions would do to their own members.....not to mention what they did to employers. It is the WORST racket - they ruined our business - a business that provided a very good living for lots of families for many years.
This is sounding like the mob. That’s how the casinos ran things in Las Vegas. They would have whichever family was running whatever at the time send a person that didn’t look like they were running anything; but they were. Casino is the one the best portrayals of Las Vegas.
It’s like you have for example a row of military highest ranked officers all sitting on a stage with one guy in a business suit. Who the heck do you think is running the show.
You are exactly right. Those benefits you think you are going to get are really going to the unions. I remember in Las Vegas; maybe it’s still true; but you could not work in the culinary field unless you were a member of the union.
A friend of mine is a truck driver. He told me lots of times he would be on time deliverying stuff; but couldn’t unload because someone had to be a specific union member at the company he was delivering to to unload. Sometimes you couldn’t find one of these people.
Hey guys, time is money and you may lose a delivery if you don’t make the delivery on time.
Well it is Chicago politics? I’ve always understood it’s one in the same?
The union will negotiate for raises in increments of nickels and dimes when they should be talking dollars and the company is all for that.
No more high productivity reward based incentives because this singles out the individual.
No more meritorious raises because this too singles out the
individual and negates the sameness that the union seeks
to promote harmonious working environment.
This all boiles down to lower wages for the employee and less that the company has to pay out. I agree, it is a racket. But both sides are involved in it and the poor employee ends up in an evil menage a trios as the recipient of a screwing from both company and union. In my experience here in the South, the most money paid out at contract time is to the union negotiatiors and union officials.
The stupidity of the rank and file that would vote for "leaders" that would demand such a bill is simply breathtaking.
I’m in the northwest and in Oregon and Washington it wasn’t like that at all.
We envied the non-union competitors - their employees were loyal to their employer, not the union, and their men were happy. We, as a union employer, had to bribe our employees to do a decent job. The prize every year was a week long trip to Hawaii for 2. We also paid out a lot of bonuses based on performance. If we didn’t do that our hourly average (income per man per hour) sank because the employees had no incentive - as they saw it - other than their extremely comfortable living - to do a decent job.
From my perspective the unionization of employers will just raise prices but not quality. Just what we don’t need.
After very many years of most flavors of working on boats, including over 2 years of school developing my boat carpentry skills, I applied at Nordlund, who built very large yachts and "Superyachts". I'd been enamored with their boats for many years.
Besides the fact that I was offered less per hour than my son was making after 2 months on the job doing landscaping 20 miles and a toll closer to home, Union Rules dictated that should I ever cease my employment with Nordlund for any reason, I could not ever work for any other employer as a boat carpenter in Washington State.
I knew very well what a "Non Compete" contract was, having challenged one before, and the fact that a yacht builder I had been so proud of as "one of ours" as a local builder of really big art would defile themselves so as to consider imposing that on a tradesman reversed my respect for that builder 180 degrees.
The fact that the union, not the company decided when/if I was to get a raise was another deal killer.
It's been my experience that the arbitrator sides with whoever is paying him.
Yes, they go to the highest bidder.