In fact, the top signer on the list and the one with the largest assets is the AFL-CIO Employees Staff Retirement Fund, so the AFL-CIO is using their blog to promote this letter from "a coalition of major investors" without bothering to point out that they themselves are the major investors in question. Everything in the article is true as written, but the appearance that the unions have found major allies in the investment community for Card Check is entirely deceptive. The progressive angels of Wall Street who have joined them in their fight turn out just to be the unions themselves in a not very clever disguise.
What's more, the letter itself is hardly the clarion cry for EFCA which the AFL-CIO would have you believe. The letter actually makes an effort to look like it originates with the UNPRI a United Nations labor practices workgroup. The letter also does not actually endorse EFCA in any way as the AFL-CIO website suggests, but actually just solicits companies for their input on various labor issues. The letter says clearly:
Please note that, although individual investors represented in this letter may have taken a view on the legislation, the group as a whole has itself not formulated an official position.In reality the UNPRI and perhaps even many of the signers of the letter don't actually support Card Check at all. The letter also describes what policy towards unions and workers rights ought to be:
The freedom to form or join a union of one’s choice or not, and to bargain collectively for the terms of one’s employment, are fundamental human rights that we as global investors recognize and respect.Who could disagree with that statement? It's broad enough that almost anyone would sign off on it, and would apply to the position of those who oppose the EFCA as well as those who support it. In fact, the main argument against Card Check is that it limits worker freedom to join unions by taking away the secret ballot which protects their free choice. So it could very well be that many of the signatories oppose the EFCA; it's certainly true that the group as a whole has not taken a position on it and the letter is not an endorsement of it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jeannie Danna
The American Medical Association and The American Bar Association are both very powerful unions. Does this story affect them? Oh, I hope not being that they are interfering with our already hurting economy by blocking lower fees being charged by all their members. Oh that's right silly me, the important "players" on Wall street have all the money they need to pay their personal health and legal bills in this failing economy; they have ours!
2 - roger nowosielski
Except, Jeannie, it's not politically correct to call them unions because they're professionals. "Union" is a dirty word, remember, and these illustrious organizations are squeaky clean.
3 - Jeannie Danna
Humor this early? Roger look at the culture section, is there a problem today? I am trying to find someone in editing to e-mail me about my pending article
4 - roger nowosielski
You might have to wait. I just responded to yours.
5 - Dave Nalle
I'll check your article out Jeannie. Remember, editors need to sleep and work too.
As for lawers and doctors organizations, they commit plenty of abuses of their own kind and ought to be appropriately regulated, but they are not unions in the normal sense, since most of their members are not what we would consider "labor" but in many cases business owners. If they functioned more to protect the interests of residents and interns and legal clerks and junior associates rather than established professionals then they would be more like unions.
Dave
6 - Cannonshop
#1 Except, you know, unlike Union Carpenters or Unionized Engineers, you can be arrested for practicing medicine without the AMA's approval, and the same for practicing law without the ABA's approval.
The word you're mistaking for "union" is "Guild".
7 - Jeannie Danna
Guild or Union if it wasn't for the American labor movement you wouldn't be business owners you would be servants, most of you anyway. The way I look at it Rush wouldn't have a mic in front of him he'd have a serving tray...
8 - jamminsue
Jeannie, it actually started long before there was an America. The Guilds started in the time of early Christianity. (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/richardson.guilds. You are very right, they are the basis of freedmen. And, yes, the Bar Association, the AMA are powerful organizations based on the Guild idea. Like everything else, "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
9 - Jeannie Danna
Thank you
look what jamminsue found :)
10 - Jeannie Danna
#9 look under encyclopedia medieval Guilds
see
11 - Baronius
Jeannie, what does the history of guilds have to do with the current legislation?
12 - Jeannie Danna
You know what? Those guilds members were a greedy lot. Not like unions at all. They did have one thing in common though, they looked out for each other...
13 - Jeannie Danna
Well maybe if we had a history lesson we would all be able to understand each other. It all boils down to money in this country and it amazes me how little every one bitches about how much is being spent on war, but the thought that American workers could form unions without having to hide from corporate paid union-busters and signing secret ballots, oh that would cost America too much money. " a really long sentence! "
14 - Baronius
You object to secret ballots?
15 - Jeannie Danna
Yes! you should be able to organize without fear of losing your jobs.
16 - Jeannie Danna
1. Strengthening penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees trying to form unions and bargain.
2. establishing mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract
3. Enabling employees to form unions when a majority signs authorization cards
These are three very good reasons to pass the act through the House.
union- busting is a huge shadow industry today and they work virtually unregulated. They are in a sense "thugs."
17 - Jeannie Danna
In my area of the country we have manufacturing companies churning out product in buildings built at the turn of the century with deplorable environments for the workers health and barley paying a living wage. Where is OSHA you might say? well, that's what we all say.
18 - Clavos
You know what? Those guilds members were a greedy lot. Not like unions at all.
Now, THAT is FUNNY!
19 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie,
You're outnumbered four to one. Save your strength.
20 - Baronius
Jeannie, your first two points seem reasonable. That third one will increase intimidation from unions, not decrease intimidation from management.
21 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
"In fact, the main argument against Card Check is that it limits worker freedom to join unions by taking away the secret ballot which protects their free choice." (page 2)
Clarify. Whose argument? That whole paragraph is muddled.
22 - Jeannie Danna
#26 What's in this argument for you? Do you own a company? and Where do you live?
what's with this?
{With all the thuggery going on in unions}
23 - Jeannie Danna
Sorry, but I have to go watch ED right now he's pro-union!
24 - Jeannie Danna
this is not propaganda
25 - roger nowosielski
Jeannie,
With all respect to Dave's editorial integrity and writing ability, this is not Dave's best effort, which is why perhaps it encouraged muddled thinking.
Dave, I think you would do us all a far greater service to enlarge on your original article, again explaining pros and cons, rather than doing another propaganda piece. It really is difficult to tell who the good guys are and who are the bad guys - not by virtue of what you're telling us who's who - but the convoluted plot. And the only reason I'm even commenting here is only to help Jeannie out of the muddled waters. Otherwise, I'd run away from this thread like a devil from holy water.
I'm out, Jeannie, lest I become excommunicated.