Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Kool-Aid Makers Accuse Me of Drinking It

by: Matt Singer

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 11:34:42 AM MDT


The Montana Chamber of Commerce says that I'm drinking Kool-Aid on the Employee Free Choice Act. That's fine, cause they're mixing the stuff up and handing it out.

The Chamber's rhetoric on this issue is repeatedly been one of concern for employees. That's funny because the Chamber doesn't represent workers. It represents management. And, as Jon Bennion admits in comments, they oppose all of the Employee Free Choice Act, even the provisions that heighten penalties for things like intimidating employees.

So -- the Chamber claims that they want to prevent workers from being intimidated. They do that by opposing meaningful penalties for intimidating employees...

Strange. Here's what I know -- pro-union employees get fired in 26% of union organizing drives. If the Chamber of Commerce wants to have an honest conversation about employee rights, we can start with that statistic.

This is the other "side" of the story that the Chamber is fighting to ensure that employees get a chance to hear. I don't know what the Chamber is smoking, but union organizing -- organizing of any sort -- is not an easy undertaking.

Union organizers don't waltz into workplaces and find huge crowds of happy employees clamoring for union representation. Usually, unions only start talking to people because they get approached by someone with a grievance. People aren't stupid. They don't want to pay union dues if they don't have concerns about their workplace. And they form unions because they don't trust their management to address the issues without a common voice.

Anyways, the Chamber accuses me of misleading and then jumps headlong into obfuscation with claims like this:

Therefore, even if a number of workers in a bargaining unit wanted an NLRB election, once union organizers convinced a bare majority of their colleagues to sign cards, all workers would be prohibited from having a secret ballot election.
Two things:
  1. It wouldn't make sense to only have a "secret ballot election" with some workers.
  2. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, employees can file a decert petition if they choose -- and have a secret ballot election. Details here.
Jon also, rightly, points out that the Montana Chamber also represents a lot of small businesses. So he got me on that one. Hell, Forward Montana pays Chamber dues to get health insurance.

But the big business is lighting up on this. The U.S. Chamber is pledging $200 million on this fight. We're going to see a lot of ruckus being made by folks like CitiGroup to kill this bill, even as they take in billions in taxpayer money.

Matt Singer :: Kool-Aid Makers Accuse Me of Drinking It
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Here's what disappoints me, Matt... (0.00 / 0)
...98% of businesses in Montana are small businesses. If the average union employee makes 30% more than a non-union worker, then doesn't it make sense that the union employee would shop at the owner-operated hardware store instead of the big-box Home Depot? I know for a fact that because of my union, I shop at Public Drug in Great Falls, instead of soliciting CVS or Walgreens. I make more money. Period. It's about rebuilding our economy and strengthening our middle class.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."~Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948)

The Missoulian weighed in today (0.00 / 0)
by giving Montana Chamber of Commerce CEO and President Webb Brown the top of the Opinion Page for an editorial. While we wait to see if the Missoulian gives "fair and balanced" exposure to EFCA supporters remains to be seen, here are some lowlights from the CofC:

"This past November, the Montana Chamber of Commerce included a question about card check in its latest poll of 600 Montana voters, which has a

4 percent margin of error. When asked whether Congress should preserve secret ballot elections in union campaigns, 77 percent of Montana voters said "yes." That's a very solid majority of Montanans who want to maintain private elections.

Isn't it ironic that labor unions feel that in order to represent more workers, they must take away such a fundamental American right from those workers? "

Will we get any fact checking from the Missoulian? Because of course, EFCA does not take away secret ballots or "fundamental American rights". It offers employees another choice to vote. It's unfortunate that the battle against EFCA can only be won if it is allowed to distort the debate through out-and-out lies. And when self-interested outfits like the Missoulian are allowed to manipulate public opinion by allowing lies to be propagated via preemptive Guest Editorials, well, it makes the fight that much harder for workers.

One could just as easy read the CofC poll to say that Montanans support EFCA, because it does preserve secret ballots. They get so caught up in their own lie, that they can't see reality for what it is.

Where's the fact checking, guys? Or are you just in the habit of letting Guest Editorialists lie on the top of your Opinion Page?  


I agree, JC... (0.00 / 0)
...and want to add when you use the language of those opposing Employee Free Choice, you are implying complicity. Why change the title of the Act to "Card Check?" Because it removes choice. Simple. I applaud you for your post.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."~Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948)

[ Parent ]
Title of Op Ed is False, False, False (0.00 / 0)
"Card Check" indicates a closed shop - you have to be a member of a union to work there.

That's not the case here.  There are union shops, where they hire outside the union but an employee joins and pays dues when they're hired (and as a result benefits from the negotiations with the boss).

Employee Free Choice Act is all about MAJORITY SIGN UP.  We would still have the option of an election, but here's the kicker - EMPLOYEES, not employers, WOULD GET TO CHOOSE HOW TO ORGANIZE.  No wonder it's so damn scary to Wal-Mart.

I can buy a car, join the Army, or enter into a 30-year mortgage with my signature.  Why on earth can't I join a union with my signature?

OH - and don't get me STARTED on how laughable it is that the Chamber of Commerce is holding themselves out as champions of the poor down-trodden worker.  What a joke, Webb.  How on earth do you sleep at night?  (Seriously, though - Webb - see me if you have issues.  3 Vodka rocks, and make the rocks Ambien).

LET'S NOT JUST TALK TO FOLKS HERE ON THE WEBS THAT AGREE WITH US, THOUGH.  LET'S ACTUALLY WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR EDUCATING THE MASSES OFF LINE!!!!!


Honest question (0.00 / 0)
So, I have seen a lot of back and forth on this and it has left me with a question.  If an employee does not want to unionize, does this increase intimidation from fellow employees?  I guess what I am confused about,you said it didn't make sense to only have a secret ballot election with some workers.  What workers and why is that?

Widow, your question is unclear? (0.00 / 0)
Is there another way you can ask it, for better clarification, please?

"You must be the change you want to see in the world."~Mahatma Gandhi, Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948)

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
I was trying to figure out why all union elections are not secret ballot.

[ Parent ]
because the employer says how the election will happen (0.00 / 0)
and the employer can intimidate and control the election to lessen the chance of the union going through.

[ Parent ]
Good question - and one a lot of folks have (0.00 / 0)
Short answer - no.

Fellow employees are just that - fellow employees.  Peers.  Employer intimidation is what is actually happening - Standard Operating Procedure.  Against the law, but it happens.

National Labor Relations Board oversees this stuff:

1935-2005; there were 42 found cases of union fraud or coersion

2007 ALONE; 9,559 instances of illegal firing (where a penalty, paltry as it is statutorily) by employers.

Fact is - unions aren't the ones out there intimidating and firing people.  Employers are.

The secret ballot would still be an option.

REPEAT - THE SECRET BALLOT WOULDS STILL BE AN OPTION.  

It would just be the employees' option.  That's all.


[ Parent ]
Just kind of a joke (0.00 / 0)
It doesn't make sense to only have half the employees in a workplace vote in an election. It is either an election for all of the employees or none of them.

[ Parent ]
A few words on a few words... (0.00 / 0)
...of Kool-Aid makers & drinkers: It's nice that we can at least count on the consistency of the Chamber of Commerce sticking up for the Captains of Commerce, while sticking it to consumers & workers.  What we need is a Chamber of Consumers to stand up for the other side of the market dichotomy, sticking it right back to Mr. Brown in a fair & balanced manner.  A little ballast would go a long way.  

Imagine, Webb Brown's evil twin from a Chamber of Consumers declaring "No more citizen's billions until Citibank changes it's name to Citi-ZEN Bank."  Imagine, also, the economic stimulation trickling down & around, from sign makers to stationary designers, as we update stadiums and parks around the country currently named Citi-something.  And since ownership has it's own rewards, just as membership has its privileges, any citizens buying tickets should expect owner-pricing discounts.  The Revolution could start with the new NY Mets Citi-ZEN Field.  That would be change a whole lot of folks could believe in.  Then we could move on to Bank of AmericaNS and AmericanS Express.

More folks should realize that real prosperity grows from the ground up - a bank first needs our dollars before it can then turn around & lend them back to us.  Imagine how nervous Webb Brown & Co. would be as more of us start to realize who depends on who?  One can imagine, at least.      


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox