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:
snip
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.
snip
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 ...
Propbably.
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.
btt
It's been my experience that the arbitrator sides with whoever is paying him.
Yes, they go to the highest bidder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.