...you can assume that we taxpayers are in for an even bigger beating that we've suffered so far.

I've posted why we should be indignant and enraged over how the administration is trampling on creditor's legal rights in favor of unions, first in the Chrysler and GM cases, with more to come, like Hartmarx and many others.

But lets not forget the unions representing all the local, state and federal government workers. They haven't gotten the press coverage, but their activity to assure that none of their members are "mistreated" are proceeding at a record pace.

Read this Wall Street Journal article...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124227027965718333.html

Organized labor’s top priority in this Congress is expected to be the "Employee Free Choice Act." The measure would dramatically change U.S. labor law. Today, employees can elect to be represented by a union by a private-ballot election to decide whether they want union representation in their workplace. Elections are overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, which has numerous procedures in place to ensure fair, fraud-free elections. Because of NLRB safeguards, employees can cast their vote confidentially, without peer pressure or coercion from unions or employers.

If Congress passes the Employee Free Choice Act, unions will no longer be required to be chosen by elections. The bill would establish a so-called "card-check" union organizing system, in which all that is required for a union to claim it's right to represent employees is that they get a majority of employees to sign a card favoring union representation.

The measure would also require a government-mandated arbitrator to force a contract on the employer if the employer and the union don't reach an agreement within 120 days. The government would set the wage rates, benefits, work rules, etc. instead of the requirement that such issues be settled through negotiation.

"But lets not forget the unions representing all the local, state and federal government workers. They haven't gotten the press coverage, but their activity to assure that none of their members are "mistreated" are proceeding at a record pace."


I know union power varies among the various state, county, and municipalities,, but I found the union at the federal level to be an absolute joke. In the places I worked for about 30 years or so, almost no one (amongst employees) had any respect for it.

First caveat -- I worked on the military side as a civilian in areas that were either highly technical and professional or at a couple headquarters levels. We had few clerk or laborer types.

In the environments in which I worked, the union rep and officers were generally less than competent workers, the ones who normally ran the coffee fund, organized the annual picnic, and maybe ran the football pool. Valuable assets in their own right, but they generally contributed little to the mission. And as far as effectiveness in representing the employees, the couple people I knew over the years who had legitimate issues with management got almost no help from the unions. About all the union ever did was act as a roadblock to any plans to reorganize or even move offices from one floor to another.

Back OT, I agree with VK. If/when implemented, card check will bring terror and chaos to American industry. Don't want to sound overly dramatic, but were this a movie, hooded riders would be dragging recalcitrant workers from their homes forcing signatures. Regardless of state law, every decent size business will be unionized. Prices will skyrocket. Businesses will go under. Jobs (union) will be lost. And more industry will move outside the US. Hey, but they meant well.




`

and do something about the pending legislation.
For starters just exactly what is it that unions bring to the party?
If you are not sure just google employment figures in either the appliance industry, the machine tool industry or more recently the automotive industry.
Decimated job content due to uncontrolled rising costs.

I remember all too well personally waging against union organizing efforts in my operations....and winning....what I won't forget is the a high ranking union representative stating that someday we will not have a choice when it is their turn.
This legislation will make that change for them. We the people need to encourage our so called representatives to defeat this bill.

BTK

I'd suggest that reading the bill itself may make it clearer than all the media reports of its content. The bill is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1409:

Let's not forget that the passage of a law by Congress does not make it constitutionally sound, nor does it make it bulletproof regarding protections contained in other laws that were not amended or repealed by passage of the bill.

After reading the EFCA, it seems ripe with the potential for boatloads of litigation. No surprise. This would not be the first time Congress passed a law to fulfill a political deal with certain special interest groups, knowing full well the law would be shot down in the courts.

What gives me the biggest chuckle is mediation and arbitration clause., which requires the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) establish an "arbitration panel" to deal with cases the FMCS cannot resolve via mediation. That means: 1) putting together a steering committee to determine the panel membership requirements; 2) preparing the job descriptions, grade levels and other requirements for panel members; 3) getting the panel funded so it can hire employees; 4) establish a record-keeping system according to OMB and Privacy laws/regulations; 5) hire the panel members; 6) write and get approved its regulations for operation and public contact; 7) and then open its doors for business.

What makes it even funnier is that the bill proposes the arbitration panel be part of the FMCS. That creates a conflict-of-interest, as the panel would have to rule upon the actions of its superior. That will NEVER stand court scrutiny under constitutional "equal protection" provisions. In addition, it now has the federal government interfering with private contracts in violation of other existing laws, including the Civil Rights Act.

Oh yes, a campaign promise was kept, but the expense to all parties, including organized labor, in downstream litigation, will be downright abominable. All of the lawyer-legislators know what's going to happen afterwards,. but they are counting on how dumb their supporters really are.

Some years back I was involved in a unionizing effort with some 25 others. Come time to vote by secret ballot under the watch of the NLRB everyone but one person voted, he was out of state at the time. Vote turned out to be 24 to 1 in favor of unionizing. Now came the problem. A few folks took offense to the fact that one person voted no. For me I felt so this is America and everyone has their own opinion like it or not, what is the big deal we won. However these folks were adamant about wanting to now who the one dissenter was and when they could not find out they kept up with the verbal nonsense to anyone who would listen. Not a great experience. After a couple of months the nonsense stopped and I eventually heard from someone why he had voted no. He explained his reasoning to me after I was elected president of the local. At the same time he also offered his support to the group in any way he could. I did not agree with his reasoning behind the vote but told him I appreciated his coming to me and that he had stood up for his beliefs at the time of the vote. I have never told anyone who the one voter was and never will, as it serves no purpose.

I fear that this kind of thing will only become worse in the future if this bill passes. I have seen how vocal and strong folks can become in this type of situation.

Originally Posted by spk7951

Some years back I was involved in a unionizing effort with some 25 others. Come time to vote by secret ballot under the watch of the NLRB everyone but one person voted, he was out of state at the time. Vote turned out to be 24 to 1 in favor of unionizing. Now came the problem. A few folks took offense to the fact that one person voted no. For me I felt so this is America and everyone has their own opinion like it or not, what is the big deal we won. However these folks were adamant about wanting to now who the one dissenter was and when they could not find out they kept up with the verbal nonsense to anyone who would listen. Not a great experience. After a couple of months the nonsense stopped and I eventually heard from someone why he had voted no. He explained his reasoning to me after I was elected president of the local. At the same time he also offered his support to the group in any way he could. I did not agree with his reasoning behind the vote but told him I appreciated his coming to me and that he had stood up for his beliefs at the time of the vote. I have never told anyone who the one voter was and never will, as it serves no purpose.

I fear that this kind of thing will only become worse in the future if this bill passes. I have seen how vocal and strong folks can become in this type of situation.

"Union organizers are often highly trained. In many unions this training includes indoctrination in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."

Saul Alinsky was a ruthless radical organizer. He would stop at nothing to win. Before he passed away in 1972 he published a book called "Rules for Radicals" in which he outlined his power tactics and questionable ethics.

Anyone interested in staying, or becoming, Union Free, whether in an organizing campaign or in a decertification or deauthorization election, ought to become familiar with these rules."

http://theunionnews.blogspot.com/200...rules-for.html

Thanks, Steve, for posting the URL to the bill itself.

What's most scary about the bill, other than the power it will provide unions to quickly and easily organize workers at businesses of all sizes is that the bill as submitted to committee has 225 co-sponsors.

That means that when this bill leaves committee, it's already passed. The co-sponsors alone are more than the required majority.

Wow! All we can hope for is that the Senate really does act as the "deliberative body" that the framers had in mind. But if the bill that comes out of the House can get 60 votes in the Senate, our economy has little hope of long-term growth. I only hope Steve's analysis is correct and that the wording of the bill provides plenty of fodder for litigation.

This one is scary.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Thanks, Steve, for posting the URL to the bill itself.

What's most scary about the bill, other than the power it will provide unions to quickly and easily organize workers at businesses of all sizes is that the bill as submitted to committee has 225 co-sponsors.

That means that when this bill leaves committee, it's already passed. The co-sponsors alone are more than the required majority.

Wow! All we can hope for is that the Senate really does act as the "deliberative body" that the framers had in mind. But if the bill that comes out of the House can get 60 votes in the Senate, our economy has little hope of long-term growth. I only hope Steve's analysis is correct and that the wording of the bill provides plenty of fodder for litigation.

This one is scary.

If this bill does nothing else, it will provide a bunch of unemployed lawyers with work. Again, the litigation which will occur will keep courts and lawyers busy for a number of years.