As Recently Heard On The Jim Quinn Show....
blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue Mar 13 18:21:11 MDT 2007
>Free Congress Foundation Commentary
>Workers Are Entitled To Free Choice In Fact, Not In Name Only
>By Paul M. Weyrich
>March 07, 2007
>With a Democratic Congress for the first time since 1993, it was only a
>matter of time until some of the Party's favorite constituents came
>forward to claim their rewards. Within weeks of her coronation Speaker of
>the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) informed the media that one of her first
>priorities was the passage of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act,
>something that big labor has been wanting for over a decade. The House
>version of the bill, H.R. 800, passed on March 1, 2007 by a vote of
>241-185. If the Senate were to pass it, which is doubtful, the President
>has stated he would invoke his rarely used veto.
>The legislation unofficially is known as the "Card Check Bill." What it
>would do is allow any union trying to win a contract in a specific
>business or industry to dispense with traditional secret ballots when the
>employees decide if they want to unionize. (There is a provision that the
>unions could initiate a secret ballot but they would have no incentive to
>do so.) Instead the employees simply would sign cards and declare in
>public whether they are for the union or against it. Another part of this
>legislation which is equally important but has slipped by many observers
>is the requirement of binding arbitration if negotiations between
>management and the union have stalled after a certain number of days. This
>clearly gives the union an advantage just to wait out the negotiations.
>So what do the labor unions and their representatives say when presented
>with questions and conflicting facts? They argue that there is no pressure
>on anyone to vote for unionization and that depriving employees of a
>secret ballot would not pressure them or affect the outcome of an
>election. And the language in various union publications and on several
>websites is almost exactly the same when they say this. Several union
>websites quote the same Cornell University study which suggests pressure
>is put on the employees not to join the union rather than to join but
>ignores any pressure the union may put on individual workers. The unions
>also claim that employees are fired in certain cases for union agitation
>and that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 guarantees the right of
>workers to join unions.
>I am not a lawyer or an expert on labor, so I asked my research staff to
>examine some of these claims. The results were surprising even to me.
>While it is true that the National Labor Relations Act is important, the
>unions failed to mention that the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 amended it and
>that since 1947 unions also have been prohibited from engaging in "unfair
> I also asked for information about this so-called Cornell University
> study. What a lulu it turned out to be. The research study the unions
> are talking about was published in a 1994 journal and written by a
> prominent labor- union spokesperson. This is someone who has testified
> about unfair labor practices for years and is definitely pro-union. The
> study itself was based on only one year of "union certification
> elections" held in the 1980s and it contains several interesting
> statistical analyses. The one that struck me -- and is easily understood
> by anyone with even limited education -- is a chart that shows which
> factors will most likely predict a union win in the vote. Only one thing
> on the chart will influence a pro-unionization vote: the card check. No
> other factor including pay raises or promises made by the company or
> meetings held by either side increases the chance of a pro-union vote
> other than the card check. No wonder this study is so often quoted by the
> unions. It contains a blueprint for the successful unionization of almost
> any business!
>The goal of the unions is, of course, to maintain power. In addition,
>because national trends have been against them for more than thirty years
>they have tried to stay alive by other means. Globalization and
>outsourcing have hurt many millions of Americans but the unions have
>sought to personalize this loss as if it were only hurting their own
>members when in fact it also has hurt many non-union workers, small
>businesses and family businesses.
>And the unions have failed to address what they have already done to harm
>the economy with policies that help make the U.S. unable to compete with
>foreign labor markets. This eventually leads to more outsourcing and the
>loss of more American jobs. The truth is that the reason people are less
>likely to join unions is because the unions got greedy themselves and many
>of their own union workers became disenchanted. Labor unions are no longer
>able to compete for new members on a level playing field.
>Make no mistake: if this legislation were to be enacted into law the
>result would be lots money for the unions. Nearly $17,000,000 in dues
>would be added to their coffers if just one group, the Transportation and
>Security Agency (TSA), were to unionize and this agency was specifically
>targeted in yet another pro-labor bill that recently sailed through the
>House of Representatives. The pro-union forces believe that TSA
>applicability already is a done deal.
>The unions have not been honest with the American public. Do not believe
>them now. This Employee Free Choice Bill is anything but a free choice for
>Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk