When you don't have enough supporters, just spend some money and create some so you look more legitimate.
This week you can probably expect a big push in the media for the cynically misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check), on which I've written before. One element of that push which will be getting coverage is an article by Seth Michaels on the AFL-CIO Now blog which heralds the fact that:
A coalition of major investors who oversee more than $750 billion in assets is joining the fight for workers’ freedom to form unions by asking major corporations what they’re doing to protect and enhance the ability of workers to form unions.
Wow, that sounds pretty serious. That's a lot of investment money. It must mean that stockholders and important players on Wall Street are really concerned about making sure that unions can bully workers into joining by taking away their right to a secret ballot.…
Article comments
26 - Jeannie Danna
See the faces of Americas workers!#32
We are not asking for corporate welfare! we are asking for work...with respect and a contract...
27 - Jeannie Danna
now I want to go finish watching ED!
28 - Clavos
The completely misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow unions to bully dissenters into voting for union representation against their wishes, is the subject of raging discussion on the day the Administration ensures the layoffs of 20,000 more union employees by forcing Government Motors (a subsidiary of the Obama Motor Car Company) into bankruptcy.
The irony is boundless.
29 - roger nowosielski
Come on, Clavos. The bankruptcy was imminent. GM couldn't be saved.
30 - Clavos
And?
31 - roger nowosielski
So it wasn't the government that brought it about. In fact, they should have stayed out of it. But you're suggesting the Feds are responsible for job loses.
32 - Clavos
Didn't say it was, did I? The administration did implement it.
But, that wasn't even my point.
33 - Clavos
And they ARE responsible for the job losses brought on by the bankruptcy; they took on that responsibility when they forced their way into control of the company.
It's their watch now.
34 - roger nowosielski
I've got your point, I think. The timing. And yes, it's a helluva time to be pressing with this legislation when companies struggle to stay alive. I could respond to that.
35 - roger nowosielski
#40
Right, too. Except I couldn't care less about those fat cats. The UAW was anathema. Gave all unions a bad name.
36 - Baronius
Jeannie, this is pretty straightforward. Anti-union voter intimidation can only work in the lead-up to a secret ballot. When the worker actually votes, it's private. There is no privacy in the card check system, so unionizers can apply pressure. What you're saying may or may not be propaganda, but it's no better than sloganeering.
37 - Bliffle
Fernando asks:
"Why do american laws not provide protection for business owners and investors to hire and fire who they want when they want?"
Well, actually, they do!
How does it work? Let me give you two examples:
1-For example, if you are, say, an engineer working for a company, perhaps a startup, and you have a five year vesting plan for your 500,000 share stock option (100,000 per year), and suppose that the company booms after 2 years (largely due to your efforts) and then they fire you!
What happened? Well, the boss made a canny analysis that you have vested 200k shares with the stock now at $50/share that you have made $10million on your vesting plan and that you stand to make another $15million (at least) on the remaining 300k shares over the next 3 years. That means that you are earning (in addition to your puny salary) $5million per year!
"Wait a minute", the boss says. "I can hire all kinds of engineers for $100k/year salary, and I can even offer them options vesting plans at 5k shares per year, thus reducing my outflow of capital from $5million/year to $250k, at NO COST.
Therefore, the logic dictates that the boss fires you.
You go to a lawyer and protest. You claim that the value you built into the product should A) insure your future employment so you can finish your vesting plan, and B) increase the stock value to $200/share over the next 3 years, so that you are getting screwed out of not just $15million but $60million!
Then the lawyer (your lawyer) tells you the sad news: "Employment is an 'at will' agreement between employee and employer and may be terminated at any time by either party, without notice or severance".
You've been well and truly farked. (And now you know why ball players demand "no cut" contracts).
But you are persistent. You sue. And after 2 years of hard work gathering depositions and perfecting your case you finally get into court, whereupon the judge declares: "The court is reluctant to interfere in the rights of employers: case dismissed".
Farked again.
Now, you may ask: "where in the Constitution does it declare that judges be reluctant to interfere in the rights of employers?" Nowhere.
"Where did the US congress pass a law saying 'don't interfere in the rights of employers'?" Nowhere.
You figure it out.
38 - Cindy
Jeannie are you in here?
39 - roger nowosielski
She was a while back.
40 - Cindy
ty Roger. Ships in the night.
41 - roger nowosielski
Very good and detailed analysis, Bliffle. I wonder what Dan Miller might say.
42 - Jeannie Danna
CLAVOS #35 #40 and any other bull you guys can come up with tonight is not going to work. Now I couldn't get here fast enough to fight you on this!
GM was TOP HEAVY and they should have brought the EV1 to the market place We would be on top now! and they wouldn't be in BANKRUPTCY! I'll be right back with more!
I hope
43 - Jeannie Danna
The one thing I keep hearing over and over about GM's trouble is "legacy costs." Those American union workers gave the best part of their lives to that company and now that they are "bones" and enjoying a far from "golden" retirement the company wants concessions from the union to reduce their health care and pensions. How about this scenario instead.
The front office stops spending money on say lobbying, huge bonuses and a myriad of company functions such as trips to expensive resorts, catered lunches, dinners and other perks only afforded the cream of the organization. This only seems fair when so many are laid off and out of work with no hope of returning in this economy; and where is the electric car?
GM and all the American car companies have really missed the mark on this one. Now that financial bankruptcy looms in the not so distant future GM needs to pull out all the stops on this one and offer America a viable electric vehicle so we can finally wean ourselves off the tet of the big oil cash cow!
44 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy, What's going on? Why did you ask me that?
45 - Cindy
Jeannie,
Hi. I wanted to answer your question. I don't think you need to put an address anywhere to look at either of my blogs.
I'm not sure which blog you meant and why it required an address.
46 - Jeannie Danna
Alright guys don't get all upset over #51 :)
47 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy, I don't have a Twitter account anymore...I just got rid of it
48 - Cindy
Oh you where talking about twitter. I am not sure why they want your address.
49 - roger nowosielski
See you tomorrow, guys. Give them hell, Jeannie. I'll still say that even the workers aren't immune to greed. And when everyone thinks only of number one, there's no longer any kind of solidarity. We are loosing a country, Jeannie. Just think about it a little.
Good night to both of you.
50 - Fernando Escobar
Bliffle...you left a key fact in your argument...
The employer spends hundres of thousand of dollars defending his right to hire and fire who and when they want to!
Plus your story is bogus...look at Cicso, Microsoft etc.....people who make money for a company are more times that not rewarded...
51 - Fernando Escobar
Bliffle...you left OUT a key fact in your argument...
52 - Jeannie Danna
Good night :)
53 - Baronius
Jeannie, you say that you keep hearing about legacy costs. Well, not on this thread. Here, we keep talking about card check, and no one's talking about legacy costs. If you want to "fight us on this", please fight us ON THIS and don't change the subject.
54 - Cindy
...people who make money for a company are more times that not rewarded...
Almost everyone that makes money for a company is outright robbed. A small group of privileged workers are like the 'house negros' who keep the 'field negros' in check.
You can find the people who make the money for the company on the production lines.
55 - Dave Nalle
What you all seem to be missing here is that this is NOT an article about Card Check, and for what it actually is, it's not "muddled" even if some of the readers can't quite grasp what the article is about.
This article is about propaganda and specifically about how a group which wants to promote an agenda can make it look like they have lots of support and are leading a movement by manufacturing the appearance of support by drawing primarily on their own resources.
I already wrote at length about the problems with Card Check, and those problems remain true. But I think it's also important to take note of the underhanded tactics which the unions are using in their efforts to promote a program which a recent poll shows is opposed by 74% of voters and even a majority of union voters.
Unions are losing this fight because people can see that card check is fundamentally unfair and they are getting desperate. This propaganda effort is a sign of that desperation.
Dave
56 - Fernando Escobar
Dave,
It seems that the propaganda is also being supported by the prounion anti capitalist administration in the whitehouse. Obama has promised the unions that he will have this bill passed this year.
So now that our education, financial and manufacturing system have been taken over by the government whats next? Subway? McDonalds? the local farmers market?
57 - roger nowosielski
"Unions are losing this fight because people can see that card check is fundamentally unfair and they are getting desperate. This propaganda effort is a sign of that desperation."
Which people, Dave? You haven't made that clear at all. It's nothing other than the usual struggle between conflicting interests - that of business, on the one hand, and the unions on the other. Nothing new, really. It's been going on for years. And propaganda, you well should know, isn't always a sign of desperation - just an ordinary tactic that both sides have been known to use to their own advantage. So you do seem to be projecting on that score at least.
I stated earlier that were you to couch this debate in terms suggested by Clavos (see above) - in terms of the timing, that is, given that our future, both of business and the workers, is very far from certain - I would have been far more receptive to your argument. But you didn't.
Consequently, I have no choice but to consider the argument on its own terms - the rights of business vs. the rights of unions; and in that respect, the argument is less convincing. The National Labor Board (and I did have experience with it more than once) is but a mouthpiece, not a very effective way of settling disputes. But more to the point, as far as I can see, you're far from having established that the Card Check legislation would be detrimental to the workers (as you claim); the intent is precisely the opposite.
58 - Doug Hunter
Unions are just another form of wealth redistribution, something democrats are huge fans of. In a competitive situation they simply destroy the industry they are in. In a noncompetitive environment they drive up the cost for everyone else. Everyone pays more taxes so that unionized and subsidized transportation operators can make $80K/year for a job plenty of people would do for $30-40K.
The only logical outcomes for more unionization in the US is lower profit margins which equal less wealth in the country and wealth actually flowing out, decreased competitiveness in the few exports we have leading to even lower manufacturing base, increased cost inside the country (inflation), and decreased buying power for non union workers. The benefit is that a select few workers who haven't managed to kill off their industry yet get overpaid.
59 - Doug Hunter
The same goes for CEO's.
60 - ed dickson
Dave,
Very interesting article and perspective. I'm afraid you are right, we have reached the age where news and political agendas are marketed like Pepsi and Coke were in the not too distant past.
Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware).
61 - roger nowosielski
I'm all for rebuilding the economy, Doug (parts of your #63 and #64). My main objection to the legislation in progress is the timing.
62 - Fernando Escobar
I am confused...why do some in here want the government to regulate the income of private citizens?
If I take my money and start a company and desire to pay the president or myself $1,000,000 a year and the receptionist $23,000 - there is nothing illegal or immoral. Where does the constitution give Washington or anyone else (unions, etc) the right to "get into" my business?
63 - Doug Hunter
Fernando, because without any rules a single or small group of entities will monopolize all wealth. Say there were no rules in regards to your imaginary business.
What if Warren Buffet was the owner of the water or electrical utilities in your area and simply cut you off and forced you to sell to his conglomerate? What if he buried you in bogus lawsuits you had to pay tens or hundreds of thousands to defend against? What if he opened a business like yours and set his price at half the cost of production?
You would either have to close your business or operate at a loss. Your millions would run out in a few months and you would be forced to sell while the loss would hardly put a dent in his billions. All he would have to do is put you into a lose-lose situation which there are many means of doing. Even if he lost ten times as much as you, you would run out of money first. Once you went bankrupt he could simply raise prices back to a profitable level. Are you for government regulating Warren Buffett's ability to make a profit in the manner I described?
The government has a necessary duty to establish some framework and legal playing field for businesses to work within. Union policy is a portion of that. There are plenty of reasons to oppose unions, but the idea that the government should not be regulating businesses and industry is crazy.
64 - Fernando Escobar
without any rules?
Have you ever owned a business?
Have you every hired an employee?
Have you ever had to make the choice of either not paying your morgage and laying off a women your moms age?
Have you ever been self employed trying to make a buck?
Every morning I see our President...spending away my retirement, my sons education and retirement, spending millions on going to broadway shows and taking pleasure rides over lower manhattan...while bailing out unions and companies that deserve to be out of business!
65 - Fernando Escobar
GM Anoounces Buyout Packages
GM is offering $20,000 cash and a $25,000 car voucher to production workers who decide to retire with their benefits.
For skilled-trades workers, the cash portion of the retirement package is $45,000 with the same car voucher.
For those not eligible to retire, GM also is offering more cash to walk away and sever all ties with the company, along with the $25,000 car voucher.
Employees with less than 10 years could get $45,000. Those with at least 10 years but less than 20 are being offered $80,000. For those with 20 years or more, it’s $115,000.
These buyouts are insane! No one not even doctors, lawyers or other highlt paid profession get 100k to walk away with 20 years PLUS a big pension and healthcare package!!!
66 - Doug Hunter
#69, Yes to all except the third question. The rest I have no disagreement with. I'm just explaining why it is necessary for government to have some say in business.
67 - Fernando Escobar
Thanks Doug...I guess there has to be some sort of balance. However we are in a very dark period in the history of capitalism.
Eventual good trumps evil and the current administrations efforts will evetually be reversed. Even the most strident Obama supporters are having "What the F--K moments at least once a week.
Back to Daves article...watching the news and reading the papers shows how the liberal media propaganda is at an all time high.
68 - roger nowosielski
Labor and Management deadlock:
Boston Globe. Case in point.