Busting Up The Unions
Beset by declining membership rolls for decades and seemingly on a slow march to irrelevancy, many are nonetheless proclaiming 2009 as the “Year of Organized Labor” in America.
And while such a “union renaissance” is precisely the last thing this country needs right now, there’s no doubt the push is on to make it happen.
In addition to hundreds of billions of dollars in public works spending that President Barack Obama is proposing to “rescue” our economy, a controversial organized labor recruitment bill is making its way through the U.S. Congress that aims to double the number of unionized workers in America.
Also, union marketers have finally figured out that younger workers are the key to their long-term survival (duh), and have begun aggressively employing Web 2.0 techniques like blogs, social networking websites and Internet ads to make their case to a new generation of laborers.
Here’s the downside to all that … a union renaissance would mean a further competitive erosion.
As if the sad state of America’s Big Three automakers wasn’t sufficient proof, unions will always put their own interests above those of the workers they are supposed to be protecting.
The long-term security of millions of jobs be damned – they’re all about getting their cut at any cost.
Similarly, unions don’t care much for individual liberties, as evidence by the deceptively-titled “Employee Free Choice Act,” which in typical two-faced Washington-speak actually takes an employee’s free choice away and puts it squarely into the hands of the labor goon squads.
Basically, what this bill would do is eliminate an individual employee’s right to a secret ballot in deciding whether or not he or she wants union representation at a specific company – paving the way for an unprecedented increase in illegal coercion and, coincidentally, union membership.
Not only that, the bill would force a fast-tracking of union contracts, and deny employees’ the right to vote on ratifying those contracts.
Having seen its strength drop to a mere 7.5% of the private sector workforce, organized labor needs a ‘Hail Mary’ to get back into the game, and this is the play they’ve come up with.
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress appear positioned to give it to them, too.
After all, Obama and the Democrats owe labor big time.
Not only did unions open up the financial floodgates for Obama in the general election, their support was instrumental in his primary win over Hillary Rodham Clinton, too.
Here in South Carolina, State Rep. Eric Bedingfield (R-Greenville) is leading the effort to protect Palmetto State workers from losing their jobs – and their rights – in the wake of this massive union push.
Specifically, Bedingfield has introduced legislation that would preserve the sanctity of the secret ballot by amending the State Constitution.
“We’re trying to identify legislation on the economic development front that will bring in new jobs and protect the ones we already have,” Bedingfield told FITS. “This would be another tool at our disposal to do just that.”
A constitutional amendment would require public approval, but recent polls show more than 70% of South Carolinians would vote to approve such a measure, and Bedingfield has amassed a healthy list of co-sponsors as well as some mainstream media ink in rolling out his proposal.
“Our tourism industry and food services are vulnerable right now as it relates to the proposed federal law,” Bedingfield says. “For me, what this boils down to is protecting the rights of individual workers and protecting our economy. By passing this amendment, we would be telling workers that their rights will be protected and telling companies that their investment in our state will be protected.”
Bedingfield, a burly, goatteed lawmaker, strikes us as the perfect person to draw a line in the sand against the union thugs.
If you’ve never met him before, let’s just say he’s not the easily-intimidated type.
Nor is he slow to realize what the proposed federal legislation would do to the small businesses and entrepreneurs that have historically comprised the backbone of job creation in our state.
“Under the provisions of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, if a company doesn’t agree to something within an unreasonably short time period then the union contract is basically going to be forced upon them,” Bedingfield says. “That’s not right. There are thousands of South Carolina companies that won’t have the legal manpower to stand up to that sort of pressure.”
“That would kill small businesses and the entrepreneurial spirit in South Carolina,” he says.
The only question is whether or not South Carolina can legally block the implementation of the new federal standard.
Generally, state constitutions can add to rights guaranteed by the federal constitution, just not subtract from them. Accordingly, federal law does not automatically trump a state constitutional guarantee, provided the federal the law does not specifically preempt states.
According to Bedingfield, the relevant constitutional standard in preemption cases is whether or not Congress intended to fully occupy the area of law to the exclusion of the states.
Although the National Labor Relations Act generally preempts state laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the past that state law may prevail if it safeguards important interests and does not disrupt the federal regulatory scheme.
Frankly we would view the right of an employee to vote his or her conscience free from union coercion to be not only an “important interest,” but a fundamental liberty.
Which is why the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the right to vote by secret ballot and freedom of association as important interests in the past.
With a conservative majority on the court (for now), that means there’s a chance Bedingfield’s amendment would survive.
We certainly hope it doesn’t come to that – and that the U.S. Congress rejects this blatant infringement on individual liberty and American competitiveness.
But irrespective of what happens in Washington, it’s critical that South Carolina protect the liberty of its workers and its economic interests by getting Bedingfield’s constitutional amendment on the ballot as soon as possible.
WEB EXTRAS:
The Federal “Employee Free Choice Act”
Rep. Bedingfield’s Bill Calling For A Constitutional Amendment
Comments
By Red Bank Bar on January 21st, 2009 at 5:43 am
Here you go again, lyin’ through your plutocratic teeth.
All this legislation does is allow majority rule. The E M P L O Y E R can’t demand an election. I’ll type slowly so the mo’s will understand, management thugs can’t stick their noses in a union election. No rights are being taken from workers, they’re free to organize. Management can’t request an election when the majority has already signed up for a union.
Bedingfield is just another dumb-arse lawyer wannabee. Federal preemption in this area is unquestioned. No matter how much the bank tower lawyers at Nelson Motors want to wish it, this amendment is another legal loser. Just like the license tag nonsense Cam Currie shot down in ten minutes. I can’t blame Nelson Motors, they’re smart enough to bill their clientele $300 an hour and FTTZ type clients are dumb enough to pay it.
By Charleston Ex Republican on January 21st, 2009 at 8:44 am
How do you on one hand argue against unions, but want to privatize the Port of Charleston. Privatization of the SCSPA mean 100% UNION control of the docks. BMW and Michelin will slowly move their business out of SC.
Get all the facts on privatization of the SCSPA before writing on the subject. How about ask Michelin which model they find most accomodating to their business??
Don’t be little mouth piece for Sanford……what has he accomplished in his lifetime, much less a Governor?
By Red Bank Worker on January 21st, 2009 at 8:47 am
So let’s put this in a likely scenario. The federal bill says that only 50% plus 1 of the eligible workers have to sign the cards to organize. So let’s say a shop has 10 employees, requiring 6 to sign up under the new federal bill. Let’s say those 6 are white and the other 4 are non-white. What happens if a union only targets the 6 white and never talks to the other 4? Isn’t that a form of discrimination? Haven’t the 4 non-white workers’ had their rights violated?
The answer is yes and this exact situation will happen. A union will target just a core group of workers, get 50% +1 and that’s ballgame. The other workers would have never known about the organizing drive. And if you think it’s far-fetched, this is the exact arguement Al Sharpton made when he announced his opposition to the bill. Al Sharpton.
With a secret ballot every worker is allowed to vote their will, away from the peer pressure of their fellow workers and the union bosses. If the secret ballot election is good enough for the public at-large, it should be good enough for workers.
By Pat Hendrix on January 21st, 2009 at 9:54 am
Agreed, SC has never had unions, even going so far as to have the government use violence to keep them out. Look how that’s worked out. Today you can drive from one end of SC to the other and all you see are signs of prosperity in this Free Market Republican stronghold. Low unemployement, great education, wonderful healthcare, low poverty and blissful masses.
Seriously guys, we’ve tried stupid for a couple hundred years. Let’s try something else.
By Earl Capps on January 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
Red Bank, you can bet some of that targeting will be both literal and physcial, especially for those who workers of union-targeted businesses who spurn the “requests for solidarity”.
Many times a workplace that holds a union vote will reject the union. Why the disparity? Simple, many workers sign petitions for an election because while they may not want an organized union in their workplace, they believe in the American principle of putting important matters to a vote.
Thugs and dictators hate free and fair elections. That should tell you something about both those who want this change, as well as those politicos who are helping to facilitate their wishes.
But look at it this way – when the small businesses are driven under, they can probably line up at the queue for a small business bailout program, in which they receive taxpayers dollars for being non-profitable (thanks to government action) so long as they comply with federal legislation and executive orders, some of which will benefit interest groups such as unions.
The mafia of the old days couldn’t have come up with a better racket.
By Red Bank Bar on January 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Red Bank Worker, my butt. I’ll wager “Whose side are you on” has never been sung in your household.
50% + 1 sounds like a majority to me.
Discrimination? If that’s discrimination, it’s the definition of the Repugnant Party in South Carolina ignoring EVERY African-American, Hispanic, or other minority voter(ok, ok, there are 2-3 Uncle Toms in the Party. One is usally wearing a red vest.)
With MANAGEMENT demanding an election, union organizers are not allowed access to the jobsite while MANAGEMENT holds mandatory meetings to harangue WORKERS. MANAGEMENT sends their thugs to record license tags at the Union Hall. MANAGEMENT illegally fires union organizers who had no recourse with President Junior’s misnamed Department of Labor.
I’ll ask again, Whose side are you on? The answer is obvious.
By baker on January 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I have mixed feelings about unions, from what I know about them, and I’m generally not extremely knowledgeable on the topic of labor vs. management and so forth.
But Pat Hendrix’s comment rings somewhat true. We’ve been anti-union in this state for decades and decades. Yes, even to the point of violence to keep unions down. Has that made SC prosperous? This business about “protecting the rights of the individual worker”….has being a “right-to-work” state ever been about PROTECTING WORKERS? Really?
Of course, I figure that in this era unions may create about as many problems as solutions. I just don’t exactly get the anti-union fervor, rage, ideological dedication, whatever.
By confused on January 21st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
what is the most heavily unionized industry in the united states? the auto industry? hhmm. how are they doing these days?
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) on January 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
FITSNews said:
“The long-term security of millions of jobs be damned – they’re all about getting their cut at any cost.”
Isn’t that the mantra of the libertarians? The old “screw you, I got mine” approach to living? If anything, it sounds to me like you’d be PRO-UNION.
Go figure, right?
- SSHM
By JustWondern on January 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
In it’s frequent attacks on labor unions, FITSNews continually demonstrates a total lack of knowledge on the subject. Usually a couple of hundred words of crap based around the term “union goons”. What is a union goon Mr. Folks? Please dont say it is someone with a baseball bat beating up on some poor worker who wont sign a pledge card. We know you have seen Hoffa, what other research have you done?
By RedBank Bar on January 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Good ole Earl Capps. He never met a rogue corporation he couldn’t apologize for or pimp for. Anytime Earl sees or hears of an individual or group of individuals threatening his beloved corporate powers-that-be, he gets nervous.
Earl is a true Repugnant Party member. He always takes the side of corporations against individuals, particularly if they want to sue the corporation to hold them responsible for their actions. It’s always individual responsiblity Earl pushes rather than corporate responsiblity.
He always takes the side of the police and prosecutors when it comes to individual rights. Ole Earl never met a Mark Fuhrman he couldn’t excuse from planting evidence or lying through their teeth.
When it comes to corporations vs the government, ole Earl never met a corporate thief, miscreant, or co-conspirator he couldn’t absolve of any responsibility. Whether it’s Ford Motor Company making exploding cars or Enron cheating the State of California with energy market manipulations, it’s ok with Earl.
Earl hates a level playing field. Earl always wants corporations to have the right to ban or fire union organizers. Earl wants to hide his disdain of majority rule. 50% + 1 is a majority, Earl. We all know you want to force elections on an already counted majority. 50% + 1 means you lost, Earl. Suck it up and accept majority rule, Earl. I know, I know, it’s hard for a Repugnant to accept.
By Statesman on January 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Unions had their place at one time. A lot of safety rules and worker rules were enacted because of them. Today there is very little industry that need unions. My dad was in the union when he drove for Greyhound. He voted for a contract, the union defeated the contract and went on strike. My father lost his job after 30 yrs because of the union. Two plants were recently closed by my former company beacause of the union taking a strike vote and their costs were more than the plants down here. Having managed both union and nonunion manufacturing plants owned by the same company, I honestly can tell you that the non union plant workers received higher wage increases and better benefit packages from the company than the unionized plant negotiated with the company. And they had to pay union dues on top of that. Just sharing a little actual experience instead of talk/debate.
By confused on January 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
dear friend red bank bar, i ask again: has not the single biggest unionized industry been declining for years, culminating in a recent crash/burn (not to mention getting passed by a non-unionized competitor for sales)? how are unions good for the country?
By baker on January 21st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Confused, it would seem that unionized and non-unionized industries are having trouble. Just at the automotive manufacturing industry is heavily unionized, Southern textile were generally heavily UN-unionized. How are they faring?
I think we should be careful not to assign black-and-white answers to big and complex questions.
By Crooner on January 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Good debate, people.
It seems to me that the burly one’s fear is that if we have unions in SC then the manufacturers will move their plants to another state where they can get workers for less wages and benefits. Talk about misnomers. Our “right to work” state is really the employers right to fire your ass for any reason or no reason at all, for the most part.
And hasn’t confused noticed that Toyota lost money last year?
By confused on January 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
baker, i understand your comparison, but disagree with it inasmuch as the textile industry has been deep sixed more as a result of internationalization, whereas the auto industry is in the tank because it’s saddled with ridonkulous union contracts, has utterly failed to respond to market forces and buried itself in collateral business efforts which failed to enhance and even detracted from their core mission. it’s simplistic, i understand, but you can’t get around the union aspect of it. when fork lift drivers make $100K, something’s skewed in your industry. unless you’re wicked smart on the back end and can make a product you can sell at a premium to everyone on the planet, you can’t overcome those kind of silly labor costs.
By Red Bank Worker on January 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Back to Red Bank Bar, he must forget that most folks don’t work for a big corporation like Dilbert. They work for small and medium sized businesses, where the boss actually knows your name. The bottom line isn’t that majority rules; that’s the case today with secret ballot elections.
The point is you’re foolish if you don’t believe that each worker’s opinion matters when joining a union. Card-check agreements let union organizers pick and choose which workers to talk to and which ones to avoid.
If you think it’s fair to for only half a workforce to know about a union organizing drive, then oppose the bill. If you think it’s fair that all workers have a say in a union organizing drive, then support the bill. Sometimes in life, the choice really is that simple.
By Earl Capps on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Red Bank, it’s nice to have someone like you telling me what I think. Why don’t you find that Red Bank bar, have a few drinks and cool your hatred of those who disagree with you.
Love me, hate me, understand me or not – I had the cojones to say what I said, without making a personal attack out of it, while putting my real name with my comments. You outta come out and say the same.
Oh, while you’re doing all the digging that tells you so much about me, you might want to find some published research of mine into deceptive corporate communication practices. Not only did it present unflattering information about how organizations such as Enron deceived and destroyed, but it won a gradaute research award.
That is if you have the ability to put together rational thoughts at all, instead of hateful misinformed rants.
By baker on January 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 am
Fair points, Confused.
I’m not denying that wages (and retirement packages and whatever else) in Detroit have something to do the mess US auto-makers are in. But the historical view of labor/industrialist relations, I think, suggests that it’s really complex. Over time you’re going to see power struggles and pressures play out one way or other. Whether it’s real pressures of internationalization and Wal-Mart pushing companies to lower costs or simple desire of owners to reduce labor costs or whatever else, there is inherent conflict….has been for a long, long time. So, I don’t think unions are wholly good or bad.
Again, I just don’t understand this ideological fervor against them.
By confused on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
at least we can both agree to the true source of all evil: wal mart.
By Earl Capps on January 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Confused … Wal-Mart, telemarkets and Satan are the Un-Holy Trinty. I’m certain of it.
By redbank1 on February 20th, 2009 at 9:19 am
the uaw is not killing ford motor co.