Thursday, April 16th, 2009...1:00 pm
Disappointed
George McGovern will be doing a signing for his new book over at the Barnes and Noble on Broadway and Rosemont tonight at seven o’clock. The Pima County Democratic Party has been promoting the event, and that’s made some Democratic party allies in the labor movement angry.
McGovern has been very vocal in his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. His anti-EFCA Op Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last August prompted dozens of “even the liberal George McGovern…” columns by conservatives extolling the guy’s wisdom, wisdom they never seemed to have recognized before.
Even worse was an ad that he did against EFCA that ran last fall (the ad and comments from the group that ran it questioning the motives of Democratic members that support it can be found at the anti-union site Labor Pains). Much of his argument seems directed not so much at EFCA itself, but its supporters. I’m not sure how anyone can interpret this ad as anything but an attack on congressional Democrats that support EFCA.
I understand why local Democrats are promoting the event given his stature within the party. But I can also see why given that this is the biggest fight that organized labor is involved in, people in the labor movement would be infuriated by the party promoting his appearance.
I’m confused by McGovern’s stridency on this issue. It seems that this isn’t just an evolution from left wing stances he took thirty five years ago, it is a total 180. One can even call it a betrayal.
And don’t even get me started on his support for payday lenders.
34 Comments
April 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
And did we tell the name of the game boy? We call it riding the gravy train.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Tedski, what is so great about the EFCA?
April 16th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I’m not surprised, considering that a couple years ago McGovern defended Wal-Mart and the salaries it pays its executives in an OpEd. I suspect he may have been low on money so the corporations were able to buy themselves a liberal apologist.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I don’t know what’s so great about the EFCA either.
Seems like a move meant to keep cigar smoking, scotch drinking, fat cat union leaders in business a little longer. This is about union dues and keeping the money from drying out.
And yes, I agree with McGovern.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I’ve never met any “Fat Cat Union Leaders.” I know that some of the officers in AFSCME could lose a few pounds, but as far as I know they don’t smoke cigars. Does “Crabby Pirate” know something about organized labor that I don’t? I am only someone who has worked with unions for decades, and I am sure that that doesn’t bless me with the extensive knowledge that I am certain that “Crabby” has gotten from listening to talk radio.
On second thought…cigars, scotch, fat…hmm…sounds like a description of Rush Limbaugh. Maybe “Crabby” is just confused.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Honestly, what so bad about a secret ballot?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Honestly, what’s so bad about letting the employees decide whether they want a secret ballot or card check?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Donna,
I don’t think you’ve researched this. Right now, card check is used to see if 30% of the employees want to vote (by secret ballot) to form a union. If they do, then the workers get to decide in private as to what is best for them.
The new card check would work the following way – if 51% of the workers signed a card, then the union forms. Then the union and management has 90 days to come to a working agreement, if nothing can be reached, the feds make a binding decision as to how the business will be run for 2 years.
So, the folks that brought you the motor vehicle department, the post office and the VA will be deciding how a business will actualy run their business. And you think we have a jobs problem now…just wait.
Intimidation is a huge issue as well. The “card check” is not a specific date and could go on for quite some time. People get hassled at work, at home, in the parking lot from union organizers. But management can intimidate as well. Say Donna supports the union, but they don’t get the numbers, well, the management will know that Donna is not a loyal employee and Donna’s career becomes stagnet.
The simple answer is to allow workers to make their decisions in private.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Tedski,
Please ’splain the bennys on this one. If you can. You were so disapointed. Why is intimidation and pissing on Democracy sight so poorly with you.
My guess is that you’re just a Democratic schill that will agree with the annointed one without any thought.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Someone who vomits Republic talking points is accusing me of being a shill. Interesting.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am
I could see having the card check-off to initiate the process for having a union put to a secret vote, but card check-off should not lead directly to a union. Is the employer able to see who signed the card? I hope not.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:42 am
He sure got a lot more conservative over the past 20 years or so. I don’t thik I’d call him a “liberal” anymore.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:51 am
By all means, single issue Card Check, and purge George Freakin’ McGovern from your party.
There is absolutely NO reason to push for card check unless you expect to be able to intimidate voters outside of a secret ballot.
It appears the new thugs have ponytails.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Tom, you didn’t respond or contradict my assertion: “This is about union dues and keeping the money from drying out.” Are all union leaders “fat cats,” no, but in my opinion many are self-serving professionals rather than the type of folks keen on organizing and bettering the conditions of the average worker.
Since you’ve been working with unions for decades, you obviously know more about this subject then me. Can you explain why union membership has declined in the past 20+ years? Can you explain why the economies of right-to-work states have generally outperformed heavily unionized states? Can you explain why there are car manufacturing plants in the south whose employees’ wages and benefits are on par with to those in the Rust Belt. If a union’s principle obligation is to the worker, I imagine that assuring that the worker has a job is priority number one. Yet, time and time again, union such as UAW pushed companies like GM towards insolvency.
Furthermore, I hardly ever listen to talk radio, I don’t have time (and I never listen to Rush). When I rarely tune in, you bet I listen to “right-wingers.” I don’t agree with plenty of their ideas or the manner in which they talk down to people, but I also don’t mind my intellect or ideology from being challenged. I keeps me honest.
Again, I have no problem union as whole, there are some very well run and efficient unions. I just think there are some top-heavy unions that have run out of ideas and foresight. EFCA is not in the best interest of the worker, but rather in the interest of the union bosses.
R!
For anyone interested read this: http://tinyurl.com/ddtxxm
April 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
disagree. worked for a neutral agency dealing with employment/labor issues for years and most of the workers complained not of the union organizers but of employers’ and their paid consultants’ harassment during union campaigns. if enough workers want the union, don’t see a need to involve anyone in the cost and hassle of conducting an election. especially when the appeals can drag on and on. this is costly for both sides. really seems disingenuous for some of these employers to now act like they care about their workers’ rights. if the particular union turns out to be so bad, the worker can have a decertification election.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Tomski, please give us a reason that Card Check is just so awesome. Don’t worry, we won’t tell Jonathan Paton where you are.
Tina, go to this website and watch the video.
http://www.myprivateballot.com/
to say that the workers can put together a decert election is OK & not vote to certify a labor union is the height of idiocy. Nice job on that one, you gave me a belly laugh.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Dear Chamber of Commerce,
Please send better anti-union trolls to comment on liberal sites. The current ones are an embarrassment.
Thank you,
Donna Hussein Diva
April 19th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“Can you explain why union membership has declined in the past 20+ years? Can you explain why the economies of right-to-work states have generally outperformed heavily unionized states? ”
Union membership has declined because of a well-funded union busting industry. Part of the reason right-to-work states have attracted companies is because they get subsidized. Alabama, the most right-to-work state in the nation, gets $1.66 back for every dollar from the federal government for every dollar it pays in.
April 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Question for the people that say secret ballots are the way to go.
If you all have such a love for secret ballots in union elections, then why aren’t you angrier at Governor Brewer who cancelled that very process when state employees asked for it? Hmm?
April 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Tina, Do you honestly want Arizona transfigured into a Michigan-like state?
Tedski, I have great love for secret ballots in all elections – except those votes by our elected officials.
Swing and a miss on Bringing Brewer’s move into this discussion. Had nothing to do with secret ballots.
T & T have obviously never owned a business or been in management to take reasonable positions on this issue. For you two to side with big labor on this is actually funny.
This should not be a left vs right issue. This is simply un-Democratic. I wouldn’t want a co-worker or a supervisor to know my decision.
What is wrong with a secrect ballot? The Unions fought to have the right to a secret ballot a generation ago. Why is taking away their right to privacy a good choice? You can’t be honest when you state that a secret ballot is wrong for Americans.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“Do you honestly want Arizona transfigured into a Michigan-like state…”
Ouch! As someone from Michigan (left in ‘81), I have mixed feelings about unions. I saw how corrupt they became in the late 70’s and the resulting poor quality of American-made cars of that time.
I also know that my father, a white-collar Ford engineer, benefitted greatly by the union influence on all Michigan employment: fabulous health insurance/benefits, consistant raises, etc.
Conversely, I’ve lived most of my adult life in AZ — a right-to-work state. A good place to be an entrepeneur; a lousy place to be an employee. Horrible wages, bad benefits, no recourse for discriminatory practices — the lack of union influence here impacts all employment — even in the public sector where I most recently worked (State of AZ) and was treated like dirt.
I look forward to a new era of unions. One that stands up for workers without ignoring changing economic/quality issues like the old UAW did. Further, I think that if a company voluntarily treats its employees well (and there are some of
those), there is no need for unionization. That being said, AZ has a hell of a long way to go before achieving workplace equity.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Italiana,
whatcha think about secret ballots?
Unions can do good things, we just need to have privacy when voting on ‘em.
Who creates jobs: Unions or businesses?
April 19th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
It would be nice if card-check were not needed.
But there is a certain huge company (starts with the same letter as a certain ex-President often went by) that notoriously treats its workers poorly and underpays them, and if anyone even mentions the word ‘union’ they are summarily fired. A worker in Kingman was fired several years ago and just this year won a suit against aforementioned large company.
In that kind of environment, something like the free choice act may be the only way to level the playing field.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Irishski:
Undecided about the secret ballot thing — not informed enough about it. My biggest concern is the job security of the employee.
BTW, Stan Lubin will be speaking about EFCA on May 16th at NW Dems B’fast Club in Phoenix. We spoke about this yesterday. I told him I suspected that there isn’t a lot of accurate EFCA information floating around. He concurred and said he’d provide an overview on the 16th.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I think there is a lot more to Unions than people understand. It depends on what Union you are talking about, AFSCME, AZCOPS, UAW, TEAMSTERS, STEAMFITTERS, TEA are different Unions in different sectors and should have different goals. EFCA really isn’t necessary with some of these Unions, TEA and UAW should probably have completely reversed philosophies…..there is way more to this than anyone understands. I actually think having a secret ballot can sometimes be beneficial to forming a Union, I know in my work it would. We have people who work where I do who do not want to join because they feel that blacklists them for promotion….I also think there are times when an open ballot is better. McGovern’s stance is righteous and fair….grant the man the reverance he deserves, and read his argument about EFCA. he feels EFCA will undermine Unions, and quite frankly, I agree with him.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Cause, if employees feel that card check would be detrimental to them, they can choose to do a secret ballot. Gah, I don’t get what the problem is. EFCA is the Employee Free CHOICE Act. It does not take away the secret ballot, and those who act like it does are making bad faith arguments.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:59 am
“Who creates jobs: Unions or businesses?”
See, Irishki, that’s where you tip your hand. The art of concern trolling is not making it too obvious that you’re concern trolling.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Donna, for the record I’m no troll for the Chamber of Commerce. You mentioned that right-to-work state economies fair better because the states subsidize business, but you failed to mention that heavily unionized states like Illinois and Ohio do the very same thing. As for union membership, I agree, union busting has become more sophisticated but this alone can not be the sole cause for a dramatic and steep decline in union membership. While doing a little research I found a piece by the AFL-CIO that stated the anti-union industry being a 4 billion dollar industry, but this is only a 1/5 of the money generated by unions in a year. Hardly David vs. Goliath.
Eli_Blake, I agree with you in some respect. Big-W does in fact abuse its employees (it’s one reason I don’t shop there) but at the same time I’ve seen the economic development a Big-W or a Big-W warehouse can bring to an entire community. In fact, I know people with no education but plenty of talent who have moved up through the Big-W ranks and now make great money. But I’m not sure if card-checking is the way to go in this case. I don’t know what the answer here is.
Cause, I agree. Some unions are much better than others. As I’ve stated before, I don’t mind unions, just not the top-heavy kind.
The SEIU impresses me the most.
R!
April 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Who creates jobs: Unions or businesses?”
Niether. People do.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Crabby, union busting is ONLY a $4b industry because union busting is ALL THEY DO. Not to mention that these firms work in concert with the companies who hire them, having all the resources of those companies at their disposal. It is a David and Goliath situation for the union organizers. Unions do much, much, more than organize and recruit new members.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Donna, you right, we do need to consider the resources that business interest have. And I agree unions do more than strictly organize and recruit which is what bothers me about many of them.
I’d like to see unions focus more on organizing (and yes I see the contradiction in my statement and my position against EFCA). Still weighing this issue out in many respects.
r.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Agree with Tina that employers arguing for the sanctity of the secret ballot are cynical and disingenuous. Having been involved in NLRB elections before I can tell you they are a joke. Employers use union-busting law firms to try to scare and intimidate workers, sometimes even breaking the law in the process. The penalties for transgressions are laughable. A cynic might argue it is irrational not to break the law when the “reward” for doing so far outweighs the penalties.
Even if a majority of workers withstand the employers’ harassment campaigns and vote for the union, employers can and do use the NLRB process to delay union recognition — sometimes for five years or more.
Most unions long ago concluded that it is wrong and immoral to subject workers to NLRB elections and their aftermath. It’s like painting big red targets on their backs and telling the boss to fire away. That is why most private sector workers who have organized themselves into unions in recent years have done so using the card-check process. Nobody (except the Chamber of Commerce and the National Right to Work Committee) ever complained. I never met a worker who said – “please, please don’t accept the democratic choice of me and my co-workers. Please don’t let us have a voice on the job. Please subject us to captive audience meetings and make veiled threats about how you’re going to close up shop if the union gets in. Please don’t allow us to bargain for health insurance or a decent pension.”
George McGovern should be ashamed of himself.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I like what CrabbyPirate has to say in general, but I gotta disagree with him/her about SEIU. That so-called union has done more to discredit EFCA than any sleazy lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce could ever dream of. In the past several,months SEIU has:
1. Waged an unprincipled battle with another union, the California Nurses Association, before negotiating a truce last month.
2. Been the subject of a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times detailing alleged corruption by top union officials in California and the Midwest. At least four SEIU officials in California, Michigan and Illinois have resigned from office and/or been reassigned by SEIU after allegations of corruption.
3. Attempted to lure already-unionized UNITE HERE workers right here in Arizona to break away from their strong and democratic union and join a fake “union” affiliated with SEIU.
I could go on and on. The point is, in his quest for more and more power, SEIU Chief Andy Stern has shown utter disdain for employee free choice.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
to the poster who scoffed at workers putting together a decert election, as if this was difficult, you clearly don’t know how easy it is. it is very difficult to unionize, what with all the union busting consultants, captive audience meetings, etc. but if and when workers decide they want a decert election, easy as pie. the employer bends over BACKWARDS to make this type of election go forward. seen it.