In all this discussion of Health care and ways to “improve” the level of health care, there have been many ideas floated around, one of which is to tax the benefits of the health care after it reaches a certain level economically, something that has not been done up til now- but then, there are a LOT of things being done now that have never been done before. With unions, under the plan being floated by Sen. Max Baucus- D, the unions would be exempt from these taxes in a blatant display of favoritism. This is in addition to the Employer Free Choice Act, or as it is otherwise known, Card Check.
Organized labor’s highest legislative priority is the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). EFCA would replace traditional secret-ballot elections, where workers decide on joining a union in the privacy of a voting booth, with “card check”–where workers publicly sign union cards, often in full view of union organizers. EFCA also authorizes the government to write and impose the terms of collective-bargaining agreements on workers and businesses at newly organized companies.
Labor unions publicly argue for congressional passage of EFCA by maintaining that the current organizing system is broken. They claim that most American workers want to join a union but employer campaigns of “coercion, intimidation, and retaliation” deter workers from voting for the union representation they desire.[1] Unions allege that during pre-election campaigns employees are routinely “harassed, intimidated, spied on, threatened and fired.”[2] They argue that this creates a climate of fear that terrifies workers into voting against the union in the private voting booth. Labor unions contend that Congress should eliminate secret ballot elections in order to protect workers from this alleged intimidation.
This argument makes little sense, of course. Secret ballots specifically protect privacy so that voters can express their views without fear of retaliation. Union membership has fallen not because of widespread intimidation, but because unions do not fit into the modern economy well and most non-union workers simply do not want to organize: A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 9 percent of non-union workers want to join a union.[3]
heritage.org
The unions love this idea, because, except for those “captive” employers who cannot relocate, the unions have driven out almost all manufacturing in the United States through their “Legacy” concessions, where retired union people get preferred health care, and pensions that are the envy of the world. That would be fine if the companies had been able to stay viable, but in the Global Marketplace there is stiff competition for workers who do not have the baggage of legacy constraints.
And then there is the basic dishonesty of the unions and how they deal with the companies they seek to unionize. The unions already have a playing field that is tilted heavily in their favor.
Several studies analyzing data from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have shown that the union movement heavily inflates charges of employer misconduct. These studies find that employers illegally fire workers in at most 3 to 4 percent of organizing campaigns.[4] These numbers make sense: Employers who want to defeat a union campaign must persuade their workers that they deserve their trust. Threatening workers demonstrates supervisors’ untrustworthiness and can make workers more likely to turn to the union for protection. Unions win more elections if employers harass and discipline union activists than when they do not.[5]
Now a new study commissioned by the labor movement confirms the results of these other studies. The labor movement’s own figures show that employers rarely threaten to fire workers who want to join unions.
This recent study is “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing,” by Kate Bronfenbrenner, a former union organizer and now a professor at Cornell University.[6] The Economic Policy Institute, a union-funded think tank and American Rights at Work, a union-backed organization established for the purpose of advocating the passage of EFCA, jointly released Bronfenbrenner’s study. It has the labor movement’s full endorsement.
Bronfenbrenner analyzed two data sets to determine how frequently employers break the law during union campaigns. First, Bronfenbrenner re-analyzed data from a previously published survey of lead union organizers in 1,004 organizing campaigns between 1999 and 2003. She asked the lead organizer of each campaign whether employers used various tactics to defeat the organizing drives.[7] Second, Bronfenbrenner requested data under the Freedom of Information Act on any Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) charges filed with the NLRB during those campaigns and their ultimate disposition.[8]
The study relies heavily on the self-reported survey of union organizers–data that suffers from many biases. Most important, union organizers do not directly observe what happens in the workplace. They only hear second- and third-hand reports. They do not know if an employer laid off an employee because he supported the union or because of chronic tardiness. They do not know if an employer “interrogated” employees or had a conversation in which an employee mentioned his views on unionizing. They do not know if employers “threatened” workers or simply explained that in collective bargaining everything is on the table and workers’ compensation can go both up and down–a fact that union organizers avoid mentioning, and a statement that is permissible within the boundaries of the National Labor Relations Act.
heritage.org
So it might appear that much of the “employee harassment” unions complain about is second or third hand gossip they use to serve their purposes. This becomes a blatant power grab, when their membership is down so much in recent years. It’s all about money here- that’s no surprise, but the unions are not the good guys here, and shouldn’t be getting more benefits in this environment. If the rest of the people are getting taxed on their health care benefits, so should the unions.
After all, they have been given not one, but two auto companies they can play with. They should be satisfied with those for awhile, until they run those into the ground like they have managed to do with everything else they touch.
Until then, perhaps they should “feel the pain” like everyone else in this country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]