Karen Ackerman, the national political director for the AFL-CIO, recently had this nonsense to say about the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act:
"Of course, employers are not happy about it," Ackerman said of the legislation. "Of course, employers are going to call it undemocratic.
"But, in fact, if people want to be members of the Republican Party, they don't have to have a secret-ballot election. If folks want to join a church or be a member of a Boys Club, they don't have to have a secret election," she said.
The Employee Free Choice Act, she said, is "a way to even out the system."
What she doesn't want to acknowledge is that my political party or church does not have special coervice powers granted by the government to compel other people to accept its "representation" and even to join or pay dues.
Even secret ballot elections for union certification are far from fair. That's because if a union is voted in, it is awarded the power to be the "exclusive representative" of all members of the bargaining unit -- even those workers who do not want to join (or be "represented by") the union brass.
Opponents of Card Check Instant Organizing shouldn't only rely on appeals to "democracy" in the debate against union officials and union-backed politicians. A democratic election may seem a better alternative to union goons misleading or coercing workers into signing authorization cards -- but one should not overlook the link between card check and the greater evil of monopoly bargaining.
If Ackerman were to be honest, she would look at the flip side of her own example -- I may be free to donate money to the Republican party, but she is also free NOT to do so. A worker should be free to join or pay dues to a union, but a worker should also be free NOT to support a union -- or to be "represented" by a union.
As long as there is monopoly bargaining -- whether it is imposed through an NLRB-supervised election or the even more abusive card check process -- there can be no real employee free choice.
Comments
Right to FREELOAD
I see that you say everone is represented even if they don't want it. Then why don't we change the laws so that the workers that don't want representation don't have to pay dues or get the benefits negotiated by the union. Sounds good to me. Lets look at not paying your dues. Then the worker is getting the union benefits for nothing. Sounds like WELFARE to me. Most of the benefits you have today were won years ago by the union. Maybe all you right to freeload workers should go back to 16 hour days so the rich can get richer.
Blatant Dishonesty
The “free rider” argument that you present is regularly trotted out by organized labor in defense of maintaining its coercive power. The defenders of compulsion plead that since they are forced, by federal labor law, to represent everyone in the bargaining unit; it is only fair that everyone represented, including nonmembers, should bear the cost of representation. On the surface, that appears to be a point well taken. An examination of the legislative history of the Wagner Act of 1935, however, reveals that the provision that requires the representation of nonmembers [Sect. 9(a)] was included in the law at the insistence of American Federation of Labor President William Green. The Roosevelt Administration was strongly opposed to this provision, but William Green and other labor leaders succeeded in persuading Congress to include the provision in the law. Since that time there have been several attempts by the U.S. Congress to relieve labor of this “burden.” The latest being (H.R. 1341) submitted by Congressman Dick Armey in 1993. To my knowledge, not a single union supported that effort or any previous effort to eliminate that requirement. Union leaders routinely engage in this spectacular hypocrisy without reservation. The pervasive dishonesty that has characterized labor’s dealings with me and the public at large over the years has caused me to regard every assertion made by organized labor with deep suspicion.