Card Check's Bounce

American Spectator ^ | 3.10.09 | Doug Bandow

[GonzoII]

Barack Obama provides a study in contrasts. He is personally measured, but his agenda is radical. Although his top personnel are largely centrist, his objectives are standard leftist issue. If his program succeeds, the U.S. will look a lot more like Europe, with far more of life controlled by the central government. Rather like American Uncle Sam meets French Sun King.

One of the most important goals of the Obama program is to strengthen labor unions. Explained the president: "I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution." Of course more powerful unions would make it easier for him to push through the rest of his policy agenda. That's why he is backing the "card check" bill, which makes it a battle to control the entire economy.

Obviously, people have a right to join unions. But there is no reason for government to promote unions, especially in today's world. For all the cant from union officials about how everyone in America is desperate to join a union, labor membership has been falling steadily for reasons unrelated to the latest National Labor Relations Board ruling.

Just 7.6 percent of private sector workers today belong to unions because most workers view unions as irrelevant in today's rapidly changing economy. Sclerosis and stasis, the normal prescriptions of union leaders, benefit labor bureaucrats rather than workers.

But these unions won't take no for an answer. Current law requires that an organizing election be held if 30 percent of workers sign a union card.

[GonzoII]

[webschooner]

He is personally measured, but his agenda is radical.

Zero is a con man who can't speak w/o a teleprompter, and his agenda is EXTREME radical.

[null and void]

"I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution."

Yeah. On planet twit, maybe...

[KarlInOhio]

If the unions acted upon the idea that they are there to protect the workers on the whole, and that clearing out a few of the lazy, drug addled, or corrupt workers would help both the company and other workers they might have a chance to helpful. However, I have never seen an example of a US union saying “You clocking in and then taking a nap hurts your brother union members. Cut it out or we break your kneecaps and then step aside while the company fires you.” Instead they fight to protect even the worst worker at the expense of the other workers.

[meyer]

If the unions acted upon the idea that they are there to protect the workers on the whole, and that clearing out a few of the lazy, drug addled, or corrupt workers would help both the company and other workers they might have a chance to helpful.

Some of the trade unions in Ohio are like that - although you are a union member, you are also something of a free agent. Contracting companies have some leeway to pick and choose the workers they like. In slow times, the lazy will generally be the most likely to be unemployed.

Unfortunately, in large, "closed-shop" unions (such as the one I was in), the union does just as you state - they protect the deadbeats and scold the productive if they work too hard.

[Minn]

"I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution."

They should tell that to GM.

[Minn]

For some inexplicable reason last I actually stopped the clicker on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow (sp?). She was quite distraught that Republicans are winning the PR battle on this one by pointing out the obvious. She said the furor about card-check was all a lie, since the bill has a provision for both elections and union thuggery and intimidation. It merely allows the union bosses to choose whether they want a private election or intimidation of employees. It's all about choice for them those fine union organizers fighting the good fight; not a violation of anybody's rights to a secret ballot.

The funny thing is, she actually acted like she had delivered some sort of rhetorical smack-down by pointing out the choice thing; as if giving union thugs a choice between elections and tire slashings to promote themselves was the purest form of democracy. All of us worried that this bill was all about the latter are just lying about the bill. It doesn't mandate that union leaders point out to workers that the union knows they live, and where his kids go to school, and "it would really be a shame if something happened to the kids". It just gives them that choice.

[irish guard]

If you have never called a Senator or Congressman to urge them to vote against something, please call them to vote against this awful bill. The worst factions within the unions will flex their muscles and this bill will inflict serious damage to the free enterprise system.

[depressed in 06]

Or, bought a union made car. My GM Alero was a nicely designed car, but, was a put together disaster.

[4Liberty]

LOL your post made me laugh. I needed that.

At my college, the teacher union goons always call themselves ‘labor’ etc. I enjoy making fun of them at dept. meetings, “Why ALWAYS with the Marxist lingo!? I’m not a “laborer”, I’m a unique producer/entrepreneur, competing with YOU. Please stop with the Marxist jargon. Thanks.”

They hate me.

:)