I didn't come up with the 70% quote,,,but I'd like to think that at least that many people in Unions would stick up for their Right to Privacy.
Try this:Binding arbitration is still bad for workers - Steve Forbes - POLITICO.com
Some senators recently decided to drop a controversial provision from the Employee “Forced” Choice Act that would have prevented workers from being able to vote via secret ballot in union elections.
That was a wise decision. After all, that provision — “card check” — is an undemocratic way for labor unions to gain new members and would put employees at risk of harassment and intimidation.
Last edited by Realist1; 08-15-09 at 04:31 PM.
Like the author of the other blog Forbes seems to mischaracterize EFCA. There is a mandate for binding arbitration after 90 days. However, this does not mean that workers would not have a say in the terms of their contract. Again bargaining committees and the procedures of contract ratification are determined by union constitutions. Nearly all unions require a majority support for a contract to be ratified and bargaining committees are usually comprised of workers as well as union reps. In many cases, union reps could not just bargain in bad faith without worker support because workers are on bargaining committees. However, if Forbes is really concerned about guaranteeing a workers a say in their contract, then he would be advocating for government regulation about how workers chose to associate.
Does anyone really believe that Forbes cares about workplace democracy? If Forbes is just concerned about giving workers a voice, then why doesn't he advocate for government arbitration that is subjected to secret ballot vote by the workers? The man argues against binding arbitration because it weakens the business owners bargaining positions. He argues against a "short" election period because longer election periods give employers a better chance at dissuading workers from joining a union.
Secondly, what I said is hardly a lie and easily understood by anyone with knowledge in economics. The unions were strongest in the 1950s and that was because America had virtually no foreign competition in most industries. We were about the only industrialized nation that didn't have the crap blown out of it during WWII so while Europe was piecing itself back to together we had a virtual global monopoly on exports. That is why we could pay workers so well in those days for manual labor and have 80% income rates and still be chugging right along as a nation. Our recession began in the 1960s right as the Europeans were coming back online and producing again. From then it was all down hill for American manufacturing: textiles, automobiles, steel makers, you name it. The final blow was NAFTA and as much as technology has improved our lives, it's also a cause for the decimation of unions. Today China and India can produce products for a fraction of what it would cost here in this country and that's why so much of that has left our shores. Unionizing further would only speed the process.
The numbers don't lie. Ideology, however, blinds.
However, if this is the case then labor unions are not properly defined as price setters, because business has bargaining power. Businesses are not simply price takers because they can refuse a contract, force a strike and even bring in temporary workers.
Unions are ultimately bargaining over the division of profit in a company. Thus, they are bargaining with a single agent who has a strict reservation value of what they can concede. This is different than bargaining with numerous agents who all have different reservation values. Since unions are only dealing with one agent, they do not have the same incentives to make supply scarce in order to increase they price. They simply name the price that they want.