LiTW has a response to our post on the Employee Forced Choice Act, and they don't like it. Nothing surprising about that. Despite the fact that many moderates and some traditional labor supporters have said the bill is a bad idea, LiTW has decided to drink the koolaid on this one.
Their post is a poor attempt to muddy the waters with a little disinformation and accusations of "dishonesty," so here's a few things to keep in mind as you read their post:
- Our membership is made up of Montana businesses, both large and small. The overwhelming majority of our members, however, are small businesses. In fact, last time I checked, we have a greater percentage of small businesses as part of our organization than the state's average. Why is that important? We hear about the card check issue from small businesses most often. Many larger businesses already have unions. As I've said before, this bill is going to dramatically affect our Montana small businesses in a negative way.
- Second, the post claims that card check allows the workers to decide how elections are conducted - not true. Union organizer will actually be the ones who make that choice. This is due to the language in the bill, Section 2(a). It says that if union authorization cards representing more than 50% of workers in a bargaining unit are presented to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), “the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative.” 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.
- Another thing I don't see many people post on is the fact that workers often only get one side of the story about unionization until there is an open campaign and an election. The effort to get signed union authorization cards is often done without the employer's knowledge, so workers don't get to hear other viewpoints until an election is planned and held. Why is it such a good thing to subject workers to one side of an issue, and take away their right to a secret ballot? Again, it's just the unions' effort to change the rules in favor of unions, which is not necessarily good for workers - especially workers that do not want a union.
Two thoughts...
I think you are making a big jump by saying unions are bad for small business, period.
Second, and more importantly, the "one sided" union you complain about is the reverse in the status quo. Employers get nearly 100% of the mic during elections now.
Posted by: Jackson T.S. | March 14, 2009 at 12:23 PM
It is no big jump to say that unions are bad for small business. Most small businesses are not getting rich...they are taking big risks and assuming great responsibility with not that great of reward to be self employed and be free to call their own shots. Unions seek to take away this freedom, they are a disincentive to be self employed. As I said, by the time most small businesses pay their employees and taxes and every other expense both government induced and business related , there is a modest amount left as profit. Yea , real smart, lets get a union involved to steal from the guy who is taking all the risk...creating the jobs and taking the responsibility. If I had to deal with a union in my small business, I would have to downsize(lay off employees) to make a profit...or cease business all together.
Posted by: Ranger | March 15, 2009 at 05:30 AM
Ranger -- do you think your employees would seek to unionize? I don't know what your line of business is, but I also know that there is a good way to avoid union drives and it is to treat your employees well enough that they don't dedicate themselves to unionizing.
A stronger middle class, I'd bet, would be good for a lot of small businesses -- as a lot of their customers would have more money in their pockets.
Posted by: Matt Singer | March 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM