When the Republican party was founded it formed around a nucleus of anti-slavery activists and northern labor reformers. They saw that the larger economic and political issue of the time, of which the abolition of slavery was only a part, was the idea of free labor. Slave labor was not free, and neither were workers in the industrial towns of the northeast who were in debt bondage to their employers. These 19th century liberals believed in free markets for the products of agriculture and industry and in a free market for labor, where workers were free to choose where they worked and to negotiate fair terms of employment based on market wages.
Abraham Lincoln was willing to go to war over this principle and hundreds of thousands fought and died to secure the right to live and work in an environment of freedom. In that era there was an understanding that labor and capital worked hand in hand for mutual benefit. This relationship was recognized in the Republican Party Platform of 1872:
Among the questions which press for attention is that which concerns the relations of capital and labor, and the Republican party recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full protection and the amplest field for capital, and for labor — the creator of capital — the largest opportunities and a just share of the mutual profits of these two great servants of civilization.Today there are those who would upset the balance between labor and capital and who would love to see an end to free labor and a return to a closed and controlled labor market where workers no longer have access to a free market of wages and opportunities. At the urging of labor unions who seek to establish monopolistic control over the workforce, Congressional Democrats led by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) have introduced a bill ironically titled the Employee Free Choice Act (HR1409). This act would take free choice away from workers and force unionization on workers in businesses nationwide without consideration of their best interests or preferences.
This bill, also known as "Card Check," would take away the right which workers currently have under the National Labor Relations Act to decide whether or not to join a union under the protection of a secret ballot. The EFCA would instead allow a public vote with no protection for the rights of workers and do so using deceptively worded authorization cards where the mere action of agreeing to hold a vote may obligate workers to accept unionization. If a vote is held, the public nature of the vote will subject workers to intimidation, peer-pressure and coercion from union operatives, making it easy to bully them into joining. If card check passes, workers will be coerced into joining unions against their will, swelling union treasuries with billions of dollars that will go to support the same Democrat politicians who have been promoting this bill.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
What's odd, Dave, that in the present conditions when jobs are so hard to come by, the unions would be presenting another stumbling block.
It just doesn't make sense. Nobody seems to give a hoot anymore whether we recover or not, they're only concerned with protecting their own, narrowly defined self-interests, even if the country ends up going to hell in a handbasket.
Roger
2 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
There may be a deeper intent, by the way. To polarize the country even further - as if it wasn't polarized enough already - a create a class structure, relatively absent in America (as opposed to some of the European countries). And there goes the notion of egalitarianism.
It's one thing to create a better system of oversight so as to prevent business abuses, quite another to try to engage in antagonistic politics.
Roger
3 - David
You are incorrect. EFCA does not "take away free choice." You only have to read the text of the bill to see that it in no way impacts a workers right to secret ballot. What it does do, for workers who choose to opt out of the unfair NLRB election process, is provide an alternative. A choice.
4 - roger nowosielski
It would help, David, if you were to spell out the NLRB "election process" so we could decide.
5 - Dave Nalle
The NLRB process was designed to protect workers rights. It's only unfair to union organizers who want to coerce people into joining a union against their will and best interests.
Since I wrote this article I've been doing some more research and I'm shocked and dismayed to find that the unions and their lobbyists have been mounting fake protests in support of Card Check in DC and nationwide where paid union stooges pretend to be concerned workers and march around chanting pre-scripted slogans promoting the cause. It's the most reprehensible example of fake populism I've seen in quite a while.
Dave
6 - roger nowosielski
Why should you be dismayed, Dave? It's a power play, like any other. But I do think this development is a sign of the politics of division precisely at the time when the country ought to be , to the extent possible, united. Formation of waring economic classes in America doesn't make for a promising future.
7 - David
What the NLRB process does is give all the power to managers, rather than workers. Corporate bosses make all the choices - when to hold the election (if ever), who can speak to employees, what information is given to workers about the union, what workers can say to the media, etc.
Of course, bosses do it all in the best interest of their workers because, you know, workin' folks are just too dumb to know what's best for themselves.
The NLRB process is a sham and bares no resemblance to American democracy.
8 - Doug Hunter
"But I do think this development is a sign of the politics of division precisely at the time when the country ought to be , to the extent possible, united."
Exactly right. Divide union and non union, white vs black, gay vs straight, male vs female, rich vs poor. Complancny and cumbayah don't get people to the polls... fear, mistrust, and hatred do. This is the strategy executed flawlessly by the current political powers.
9 - roger nowosielski
Yes, that's the underlying theme that Dave should address.
10 - roger nowosielski
You just gave me the idea, Doug, for my next piece. I'm certain there have been other policy decisions and/or laws in the making which aim at the very same thing. It's putting political power above the welfare of the nation.
11 - Dave Nalle
For those who can't get enough of this issue, check out the accompanying video now added on page 2.
As for the underlying theme of division, I do address it. Division is natural and desirable. There's supposed to be a balance in the economy between the power of management and the power of labor. When business receives special privileges from government the balance is upset. When unions receive special privileges (as with this bill) the balance is upset in the other direction.
Dave
12 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
Well, if you're talking about division as far as competition is concerned, I agree. But this smacks of an attempt to divide the society along class lines.
Not in accord, I should say, with the American creed.
Roger
13 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
Just listened to the video. It's great and you should try to make it part and parcel of your written submissions, especially when it matters. I spoken word has so much greater appeal, and you're doing it extremely well. If I were you, I would try to make it more public than BC. (What's the technology?)
I understand that in the fire-chat context, the ideological divide I am hinting at would not go that well. I can't help, however, but suspect that that may well be at the bottom of bills like that - divisive politics.
Again, great job.
Roger
14 - Dave Nalle
Divisive politics are at the bottom of almost anything if that's what you're looking for. In the case of Card Check, however, it's more a case of the desire for enhanced power. Unions have lost a lot of ground in key states and they see an opportunity to get some of it back in a big way. In conjunction, politicians see a chance to profit from happy, rich and generous union supporters.
On the other side, I can mostly only speak for myself. My experience with unions has been very negative. I've had the opportunity to join a union twice. In both cases the methods used in recruiting were very heavy handed and coercive. But since that time I've seen other things which trouble me a lot. I really dislike paid faux activism and the unions are the masters of it. They pay people to pretend to be WalMart employees on picket lines. They operate through multiple front groups with deceptive pseudoagendas all the time. They're distressingly underhanded and corrupt.
Glad you liked the video. It's up on YouTube and on the RLC site along with a version of this article. I did it in one take and haven't gotten good enough with iMovie yet to edit out the ums and ahs, but I'm working on it.
Dave
15 - roger nowosielski
I may agree with you that unions per se don't look beyond. But why should the politicians be pushing for this kind of legislation here and now? It won't make me a conspiracy theorist, but I still have to ask.
Anyway, that surely was an enhancement.
Roger
16 - handyguy
Dave doesn't bother to address the main argument of pro-Card Check folks: that under current rules, a 'secret ballot' election has been abused many times by many corporations to intimidate workers, fire union supporters, etc. Elections don't occur immediately, and the time between announcement and voting is when the abuse has occurred.
Dave talks about intimidation from union organizers. There's nothing good about that either. But this kind of one-sided argument, where you ignore a significant chunk of the real issues, is propaganda, not reasoned discussion.
Recommended article, from the front page of yesterday's NY Times, covering both perspectives of the issue in a particular case involving nurses. The specifics make it easier to understand how both sides distort this issue rather than honestly discussing it.
Painting the unions as bad guys is tunnel-vision nonsense.
17 - Baronius
Interesting article, Handy, but considering that the management was breaking already-existing laws, why shouldn't we simply enforce the laws on the books?
18 - handyguy
We should.
But if a majority of the workers sign a card saying they want a union, and then in a secret ballot the union loses, something is out of whack. Neither side is being completely honest and above board in arguing this issue.
19 - roger nowosielski
I don't know whether any of you have watched Dave's video, but he does make a compelling case for the kind of coercion that exists with open ballots.
That alone is something to consider.
20 - handyguy
There is coercion from both sides, and it's hard to prove in court. That doesn't mean we should pretend one side has a monopoly on fairness or unfairness.
21 - Baronius
If the majority of workers sign cards while a unionizer is watching, then vote against a union in private, that sure does tell us something.
22 - roger nowosielski
Not just that. As Dave portrayed it (in the video), there's also the peer pressure.
23 - handyguy
I think you know that isn't the only way to interpret such a situation. One shouldn't have to twist facts or interpretations to 'win' an argument.
24 - roger nowosielski
What other way is there?
25 - Baronius
Handy, was comment #23 directed to me?