Secret Ballots

The USA Today reports:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would allow labor unions to organize workplaces without a secret ballot election.
Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending organized labor’s chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress.

The final vote was 51-48.

The outcome was not a surprise, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying for months that he would stop the legislation in the Senate. The White House also made it clear that if the bill passed Congress it would be vetoed.

The House passed the bill in March. Democrats and labor unions pressed for a vote in the Senate in hopes of rallying their voters in the 2008 elections, where they hope to win the White House and increase their majorities in the House and Senate.

[...]

The legislation was a litmus test vote for organized labor and businesses, strong supporters of Democrats and Republicans respectively. “Today’s vote shows us who is standing with workers and which politicians are in collusion with corporate America to destroy the middle class,” Teamsters President Jim Hoffa said.

This bill would never have passed and even if under some strange circumstances it did pass, it would have been vetoed. In other words, there was absolutely no chance of this bill ever becoming law. It defines what I loathe about the political process: symbolic votes. Hoffa’s comments essentially sum this up.

Even more startling were the comments made by John Edwards:

Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security.

Does Edwards truly believe this?

Nothing has been done to impede unionization through this process. The vote upholds the status quo (which seemed to work very well for unions for so long).

Nevertheless the Edwards-type rhetoric is often spewed as though it were truth when, in fact, it is far from it.

Let’s look at an example. NPR reported not long ago the story of Renee Brown:

Renee Brown works assembling the Camry — the nation’s best-selling car. She puts in seat belts and cup holders at Toyota’s plant in Kentucky horse country.

Brown grew up in Beattyville, a tiny, struggling town in the state’s Appalachian coalfields. The town doesn’t have many good jobs today.

Brown previously worked as an assistant manager at Dairy Queen, where she made $20,000 annually. Six years ago, she got a job at Toyota.

Now, Brown makes $70,000 a year — more than twice the average manufacturing wage in the area.

The United Auto Workers have tried to crack the Toyota plant since before it opened. Last spring, they opened their own organizing office just down the road.

But Brown says that Toyota’s wages are so close to the union’s, she doesn’t see the advantage.

I do not wish that unions were illegal and I do not discount the success that they have had in raising wages through collective bargaining. However, to claim that one should be able to go from poverty to middle class simply by joining a union is preposterous. Unions membership is down, but it is not because it is any harder to form a union than it was in the past, it is simply because unions are becoming increasingly obsolete. Ironically, they are becoming obsolete because businesses are replicating Henry Ford and paying efficiency wages.

The example above is not merely anecdotal. It is true that companies would prefer to have non-union workers, but the best way to achieve this is to eliminate the incentive for employees to unionize and thus increase their wages and benefits.

Unfortunately, as Edwards’s comments illustrate, the Marxist belief in the surplus value of labor and exploitation persists to this day.

UPDATE: Greg Mankiw weighs in:

I have no doubt that making it easier for workers to form cartels would raise wages–at least for those workers in the cartels. But demand curves slope downward.

One response to “Secret Ballots

  1. This legislation is the prime example of how misguided labor unions have become and how politicians play the political game. Labor claims that they need a simple card check process for organizing and for government to become the arbitrator when they cannot fulfill their duty to bargain on behalf of their members. Our Democratic party representatives in DC played right along and gave labor the voting record they demanded. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME!
    Lets get real…show me one labor union that is willing to change their election process to what amounts to signing a petition. Show me one politician that is willing to place their elected position in the hands of a petition drive. Can anyone argue that putting disputed negotiations in the hands of an appointed arbitrator has any validity? Lets see…the arbitrator is the hand picked flunkie of organized labor.
    America has a foundation of allowing all individuals the right to a private election process. What makes organized labor believe that they are above this process?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s