As Recently Heard On The Jim Quinn Show....

John Quayle 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 
>labor practices."
>
>  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 
>workers.
>
>Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20070313/a303de1c/attachment.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list