(sorry, giant pics)





I wasn't specifically for or against card check before this letter, but now I am totally in favor of it. I'm all for bringing about the apocalypse, which apparently this bill, if passed, will do.

On a side note, who knew that hooksaw got a job writing mass mailings?

9/10/2009 11:37:26 AM

This reads like an Amnesty International letter, only longer.

9/10/2009 11:42:09 AM

straw man argument

9/10/2009 11:48:30 AM

Quote :

"I wasn't specifically for or against card check before this letter, but now I am totally in favor of it. I'm all for bringing about the apocalypse, which apparently this bill, if passed, will do."

I'm not quite sure I caught the part where they claimed the Apocalypse would come about under this bill. Perhaps I missed it. That being said, despite its hyperventilation, factually speaking most of their points don't seem to be that far off the mark:

Quote :

"** Force millions of additional working Americans to pay union dues under the threat of losing their jobs"

Do you dispute that those who do not sign a card at a shop are bound to be represented by a union and pay union dues, or be forced to quit?

Quote :

"Dramatically increase the wasteful work rules, hate-the-boss propaganda, and bitter strikes that shutdown businesses and destroy jobs[...]"

Again, drama aside, are you claiming this is untrue?

The third point is misleading and inaccurate, so we'll simply dispense with that one.

There's plenty of melodrama here, as there is in any political fundraising pitch. But is there some dispute over the central claims at hand here?

9/10/2009 12:12:14 PM

Quote :

"Do you dispute that those who do not sign a card at a shop are bound to be represented by a union and pay union dues, or be forced to quit?"

well then it's a good thing you live somewhere where that's not even possible.

My opinion: the Wagner Act was fine as it stood, as it provided a orderly way for people to exercise their right to collectively bargain. Before there was a NLRB, labor issues were much MUCH bloodier and the divide between workers and businesspersons on the whole was much more combative. This act at least civilized the conflict.

I think this legislation doesn't fix the real problem: that unions aren't proving their relevance to the average worker. If they can do that, then they won't need special new laws.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2009 1:06:19 PM

My opinion: the Wagner Act was terrible as it stood, as it granted both sides of the dispute monopoly privileges, dramatically curtailing workers rights to self determination. Before there was a NLRB, labor issues were much MUCH rarer and the divide between workers and businesspersons on the whole was much more egalitarian. Meanwhile, now, society must absorb to dead-weight losses as whole industries get shut down every few years over yet another contract dispute, just so we can enjoy the privileged of higher prices and less competition.

9/10/2009 1:18:42 PM

Quote :

"Before there was a NLRB, labor issues were much MUCH rarer and the divide between workers and businesspersons on the whole was much more egalitarian."

wow...um, once again, you're either being purposefully obtuse or you're really that ignorant of early 20th century labor relations. maybe you could start by explaining how it was more advantageous for organized labor to be under a system where they could all just be fired for organizing on the spot, or even better, be forced to remain in jobs with bad conditions until they just die from a mine collapse or a factory fire. then again, you are the guy that said it was better for China to have dangerous mines than bone up the money and rules to make them safer because those costs outweigh the cost of life.

gotta love conservative revisionist history. "actually, slaves had it good...actually women were freer...actually the raised labor costs outweigh the value of a life".

9/10/2009 1:50:38 PM

Quote :

"well then it's a good thing you live somewhere where that's not even possible."

I am aware that NC is a right-to-work state, as I am sure that you are aware that 28 states are not.

Quote :

"I think this legislation doesn't fix the real problem: that unions aren't proving their relevance to the average worker. If they can do that, then they won't need special new laws."

I agree with this analysis.

9/10/2009 1:53:33 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't specifically for or against card check before this letter"

9/10/2009 2:18:58 PM

PinkandBlack, I have read my history, and I know of all the examples you would probably list. And it is a remarkably short list. Far more instances of violence occurred immediately after its passage in the 30s than occurred in the preceding hundred years. Yes, the textbooks make a big deal out of the Pinkertons, but they only shot nine people. Far more people than that disappeared into the mob-run machinery of the unions in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.

Quote :

"maybe you could start by explaining how it was more advantageous for organized labor to be under a system where they could all just be fired for organizing on the spot"

It is called Liberty and equality before the law. Government sanctioned labor unions steal from customers and the unemployed to give to union members, which invariably enjoy incomes higher than the average for society, in effect stealing from the poor to give to the middle class. Such a goal is not justification for sacrificing freedom of contract.

Quote :

"or even better, be forced to remain in jobs with bad conditions until they just die from a mine collapse or a factory fire."

They are not forced. If they wish to seek safer employment they are free to do so. But, as with any free labor market, safer jobs invariably pay less. You refer to unsafe coal mine workers, but the average mine worker earned far more than the average farmer or even factory worker of his day, and was far less likely to face sudden hunger due to crop failure or homelessness due to economic downturns. Allowing unions to game the system to force safer mines means giving up something else, usually both higher coal prices for the rest of society and lower wages for mine workers from driving away the risk premium. It is not obvious to me this is just, especially when it is obvious that the mines in question were not that old and every worker there consciously moved their families hundreds of miles to live and work there, clearly dramatically preferring such dangerous work to the alternatives they had previously.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM. Reason : ./,.]

9/10/2009 2:21:00 PM

Quote :

"On a side note, who knew that hooksaw got a job writing mass mailings?"

Come on, hooksaw isn't that bad of a writer.

That is a really poorly written letter. Ignoring the quality of the writing for the moment, you kind of lose the enhancement effect when you underline or bold or star everything. It is like going through a book you are studying to pick out the most important points & highlighting the whole book (I've seen this done in used books I've bought from the campus bookstore many many times).

9/10/2009 2:24:55 PM

Quote :

"It is called Liberty and equality before the law. Government sanctioned labor unions steal from customers and the unemployed to give to union members, which invariably enjoy incomes higher than the average for society, in effect stealing from the poor to give to the middle class. Such a goal is not justification for sacrificing freedom of contract."

It doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of the disparity of power between labor and management and the initial inspiration behind movements for better working conditions. If it was best for business to institute the sort of reforms we saw due to progressive legislation and labor movements, then why were there so many mass strikes (which you deny happened, but 90% of all accounts not published by Regnery or the George Mason economics dept) thoroughly cover, this goes for the entire world). For all those things labor can do, with a snap, a business can just fire them all and end things. Why do you think people joined up with labor organizations en masse in the early 20th century in industrial areas? because mafia goons forced them all? I'm sure you'll be obtuse and act like the spontaneous order that exists between labor and management is the only true vision of freedom (and, of course, was better for workers than any sort of bullshit OSHA laws which cost us precious precious dollars), but the fact of the matter is that like it or not, labor was instrumental in agitating for better conditions, no matter what sort of "LABOR CARTELS AGARRRARARRR" stuff the Mises Institute puts out. i guess labor should apologize for creating the nightmarish workplace where people can't work for 3.00 an hour and you can make rational decisions about what to put into your body after you've realized dr. feel goods snake tonic has just destroyed your hearing. such tyrrany.

Once again, you think that the cost of work safety isn't worth the hit to the bottom line, so really there's no use arguing with you. I'm sure you've got some fun facts and figures but I spent a good semester parsing through garbage from Hillsdale College and libertarian economists on how social welfare isn't worth the cost and we were better off without any laws except the laws bestowed by benevolent RATIONAL businessmen and spontaneous order will solve all problems, but the fact of the matter is, when times are tough and people have common goals, they can collectively get shit done and make things better, and you don't have to be a progressive to see that.

positive liberty? negative liberty? who cares? none of its a law of nature anyway. isaiah berlin was wrong and as soon as people ditch rigid definitions of liberty we might actually gets some things done together.

the hilarious thing is...i actually identify as a sort of libertarian...just one who thinks non-governmental action like humanitarian movements and labor movements are the best things for the human condition.

[Edited on September 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2009 8:47:33 PM

Quote :

"just one who thinks non-governmental action like humanitarian movements and labor movements are the best things for the human condition."

I was almost understanding your perspective....until the last line. Labor movements are not "non-governmental" action.

Any libertarian worth his salt will recognize the right of workers bees to voluntarily band together and refuse to work unless certain conditions are met. And they can boycott employers for whatever reason they wish on the consumer end. And they can be as aggressive (in a non-violent way) in getting others to hate the company that treats/treated them poorly.

But that's not what labor unions do. No....they do all of those things, with the governmental stick behind their back that doesn't allow the company to replace striking workers with new ones.

The entire power of any labor movement is wrapped up in the ability for it to strike effectively. And its ability to strike effectively is equally dependent on the government preventing the employer from hiring new labor.

If labor unions acted in a "non-governmental" way, I would have no vengeance or hatred toward them. I might not like them too much...but it wouldn't be hate. Instead, they are using the strong arm of government (using both threats of public violence - jail/penalties for employers who...you know...hire people, and actual private violence to make their points).

9/10/2009 10:20:10 PM

I guess I don't see how anyone can think this is a good idea. Unionization, take it or leave it. Opening the process up to intimidation by a group of people who have been known to do so in the past? Sounds fucking stupid.

9/10/2009 11:12:44 PM

Quote :

"Once again, you think that the cost of work safety isn't worth the hit to the bottom line"

I did not say that was my opinion. If I found myself working in a 19th century coal mine I would have quickly started making plans to move back to the city to lower wages and cramped living conditions rife with urban crime. But we are not talking about me and my preferences, we are talking about the miners and their preferences, which were clearly willing to sacrifice safety in exchange for higher pay. Otherwise, they would have joined me in my trek back to the nearest city. Or, more likely, not made the trek to the mine from the city in the first place. The question is not whether we would make that call, but should they bear their own demonstrated preferences. Or, should the government step in and grant them the special privilege to dictate over other workers.

I agree with TULIPlovr. I would fully support a voluntary union. I would refuse to accept work at a business which has mistreated its workers to such a point that they are striking without government protections. But when they strike with government protections, then I have no faith in the process, it is just greed run amok, and we are all poorer for it.

9/11/2009 8:27:29 AM

Boeing Workers Vote 3 to 1 to Go "Union-Free"
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/14/boeing-co-employees-vote-to-disband-union/
"Boeing Co. workers in North Charleston voted overwhelmingly to disband their union in a move that could give the region an edge in landing an aircraft plant the company is looking to build.

Of the 267 ballots cast, 199 were in favor of decertifying the election that made them members of the International Association of Machinists. The company was pleased; the union was disappointed.

The local plant makes rear fuselage sections for Boeing's 787, a new fast-selling lightweight jet that has been delayed by snags with suppliers and an eight-week strike last year by the IAM.

Boeing has said it would consider North Charleston and its manufacturing hub outside Seattle, among other sites, for a new 787 assembly plant. A decision is expected by the end of the year."

9/14/2009 11:04:21 PM

Rather than read the bickering, I will provide my standard reply to union issues:

I believe in the inalienable right to collective bargaining for labor. I also believe that the government has little, if any, business interfering on either side's behalf.

9/15/2009 2:00:53 AM

Quote :

"I believe in the inalienable right to collective bargaining for labor"

This can mean many things. Are you merely recognizing workers' rights to give their employer a collective ultimatum? Or are you suggesting that they have an actual right to collective bargaining, meaning that they have a right to force the employer to negotiate with them?

If there is a right to collective bargaining, than the government can/should enforce that right by making the employer sit down at the table - because an employer who does not negotiate (and instead fires them all and hires new labor) would be violating their right to bargain with the employer.

9/15/2009 2:58:36 AM

that letter must have been written before Kennedy died.

9/15/2009 3:29:01 AM

collective bargaining also means forcing the will of the Union on those workers that would wish to bargain separately.

9/15/2009 8:32:28 AM

^^^I meant it it say that workers can form any sort of organization they want, and they can try to force employers to do all sorts of things. Likewise the company can just fire them all.

9/15/2009 12:54:01 PM

^Sounds good to me. The way the terms are traditionally used makes it hard to clarify.

9/15/2009 3:11:56 PM