Some End-Of-Summer Labor Pains

The Murdoch Street Journal tells us here (a few days before the holiday) that…

…rewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is "card check" legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal "right to work" laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn't win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one -- Iowa -- and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

As noted here in a post crediting Oregon Senator Ron Wyden for supporting card check, (and criticizing fellow Repug Senator Gordon Smith for opposing it), card check “(allows) for certification of a union when a majority of workers signed cards designating the union as their bargaining representative.” Such transparency is needed to ensure that employers don’t use secrecy to threaten workers who wish to join a union (actually the complete opposite scenario of the one described by the Journal).

And this AFL-CIO post tells us that “right to work” laws (“right to work for less” is more accurate) actually cheat dues-paying union members because “(they) say unions must represent all eligible employees, whether they pay dues or not. This forces unions to use their time and members’ dues money to provide union benefits to free riders who are not willing to pay their fair share.” And by weakening unions, it makes it harder for them to ensure workplace safeguards for their members.

Also, it should be noted that federal law already protects workers who don’t wish to join unions, so let’s set that “straw man” alight right now, OK?

There are many reasons why the Journal opposes unions, despite their two-faced claim that “if workers want to form a union, they have every right to do so.” One of them is because unions oppose “free” trade agreements, which is anathema to our corpocracy. But as I’ve often said, if you can present evidence to me of a job in this country that was replaced in the same industry with a better paying job with better benefits due to a “free” trade agreement, I’d love to hear about it.

This takes you to more information on the “right to work” scam and the 22 states that have fallen victim to it. And it’s not surprising that Democrats have not done well there, since what the party advocates and represents is completely opposite to this anti-union con.

Update 8/31/08: Here's more from Pete Dreier.