Card check hypocrisy

It is no secret the unions helped, if indeed they were not critical in, President Obama get elected; it is estimated they spent over a billion dollars in union dues to ensure his election.  The list of Obama’s “paybacks” for the union support are fairly well documented, starting with his repeal of Executive Order 13201, signed by President Bush, which said private-sector employees could be forced to pay some union dues, but could not be forced to pay any dues or fees earmarked for union politics, lobbying, and other non-bargaining activities.  This was repealed only two weeks into Obama’s administration.  Clearly now the unions can spend even more money supporting Democrats and other leftists. 

More obvious than the repeal, but in the same vein, was the disproportionate value of GM handed to the unions over the bondholders by the Administration.  The “bondholders who held $27 billion of GM’s debt got a 10% ownership stake in the GM while the UAW, who hold $10 billion of debt got awarded 17.5% of the company?”  While still likely illegal (in my opinion), no one seems concerned about this except the millions of non-union pensioners holding GM bonds in their retirement plans who foolishly thought the law required bondholders to be paid before lower level debt obligations.  Obviously this was a blatant union payback, but probably not as far reaching as rolling back the Executive Order.

A centerpiece of Obama’s campaign was his support for the oxymoronically named Employee Free Choice Act, or “Card Check” for short, which, among other things, allows for union organization by getting rid of the time-honored American tradition of secret ballots.  The theory of card check is that it would be much easier for union organizers to establish unions in non-union shops as they wouldn’t necessarily be able to get votes in a secret ballot environment.  Obviously without the secret ballot, pressure and abuse could be applied to employees to influence the direction of the “check.”  The unions were, until recently, united in their support for the card check program.

Now however, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which advertises itself as the “largest and fastest growing union in North America” has changed that.  In fact, with over two million claimed members, they are one of the few unions that have been growing in the past few years.  According to the LA Times, “For years, the powerful SEIU has played a lead role in the campaign for a landmark federal law that would allow workers to join a labor organization simply by signing petitions.”  In other words, the SEIU was absolutely in favor of the pathetic card check process which is wending its way through Congress.

But the story changed a bit recently.  It turns out the SEIU has competition (which is typically a good thing in a capitalistic country) in California.  Apparently a new union is trying to use signed petitions to allow employees to move from the SEIU to the new one; a petition sounds a lot like a card check to me.  Not surprisingly, the SEIU claims foul.  They say “that labor activists can intimidate or mislead workers during organizing campaigns.”  Wow, there is a real surprise.

It seems the card check is good if the union is organizing in a non-union shop but is totally wrong if the same process is used to get existing union members to join another union.  What is wrong with this picture?  Clearly the SEIU wants to use card check to build up their coffers; there is no possible way they care about their members as they may be better off in the new union.  It is not the members’ welfare with which the SEIU is concerned; it is the members’ money they care about. 

Shame on the SEIU’s hypocrisy.  I must say I find it amusing that the unions are fighting each other rather than fighting freedom and the American way.  The SEIU's actions are a microcosm of why the unions fit so well with the Democrat party.  Their real goal is ever increased power and control; not the welfare of the people they are supposed to represent.

Comments

[Ceart]

From a historical perspective:

Card Check passed the House during the last Congress, but was defeated in the Senate by failure of closure (filibuster) along an almost party line vote. Can this happen again with the Specter spectacle and the clown from Minnesota coming to the aid of the Democrats?

George McGovern, the poster adult for modern liberalism is against this bill. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/06/1823891.aspx

Democrats in Congress are so beholden to unions for their jobs that they will not listen to reason from a party icon.

From a future perspective:

Will workers be able to decertify a union via the card check? I bet not. Unions would be crying about management strong-arming employees to get rid of them.

I have always felt that card check is unconstitutional in that it disenfranchises almost half the employees. It may be a stretch to associate election constitutionality to the workplace, but the courts have stretched it far beyond the original intent anyway. The fact that the government is mandating unfair practices may be enough for the conservatives and moderates on the Supreme Court to throw out the provision.

[Andrew Smith]

Don't know how this was posted in the other thread (perhaps too many tabs open at once, ha!) but here's the post moved

We can only hope, Ceart. Giving the federal government the power to regulate unions has once again demonstrated that any organization which can get its foot in the door of Congress can influence and manipulate politicians to create policy. However, it will take people actually filing lawsuits in order to overtune these laws and give the power back to the people: business leaders and union chiefs alike. What ever will the Democrats do without their union dollars? What will the Republicans do without their annual CEO thank you gifts?

I hope that some courageous individual does file a suit and the Supreme Court comes to its senses and throws out some if not all of the federal laws governing unions, but that is probably a pipe dream.

[Jerry Scarborough]

I suspect the Congressional Democrats would do the bidding of their mastes and block card check union switching. But, maybe not. It could get to be an interesting game of power dominioes watching unions raid each other for members. Quite a spectator sport.

There still may be hope for common sense though. The Spector switch really doesn't matter much. He had already indicated he would probably support card check. But, there are a few moderate Democrat Senators who might get in trouble back home for supporting such a thing. I don't think 60 votes is in the cards yet.