2008.12.30
Don't abuse the Virginia Constitution to fight unions
Del. Chris Saxman doesn't like the card-check law Congress is considering. It would change the rules for forming unions, ending secret ballots. We don't like it either, but we don't think Saxman should try to ram an unrelated provision into the state constitution as a form of protest.
Virginia is a right-to-work state. That means no worker can be forced to join a union. Saxman worries that Virginia needs to protect that law from the card-check law. But the two are related only in so far as they are both about unions. If the federal government changes union forming rules, that won't effect Virginia's law one bit. The commonwealth would remain a right-to-work state.
Really, Saxman is just making a political point in opposition to the card-check law and unions generally. In an editorial to run some time soon, we'll remind him that there are better ways to do that than cluttering up the constitution.
RSS feed 
Please explain how changing the Federal law would not affect Virginia's law on unions. Even though Virginia is currently a right-to-work state, if Federal law is changed so that a union could form if just 50.1% of employees choose to do so, how would that not affect things here in Virginia? I can understand why the Delegate has concerns about the new law and the widespread ramifications it would have. Does Federal law not trump state law regarding this? Any details on this would be much appreciated.
Comment by Other John — December 30, 2008 @ 11:57 am
OJ,
The card-check legislation governs the how unions are formed. It says nothing about the right of non-union workers to work in union shops, which is what the right-to-work law guarantees.
As noted above, the issues are related only in that they both deal with unions. But the card-check legislation, misguided as it is, will not impact Virginia's right-to-work law in any way.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — December 30, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
You seem to misunderstand what Virginia's law now does. It does not forbid unions. It only says that if there is a union, neither the union nor the company can compel membership and due payment. Workers at a company could still form a union in Virginia, even without the card-check law and whether or rtw goes in the constitution.
The card-check law only changes the procedures for forming unions, not the ability to do so. It would make it easier to form unions and deny workers a secret ballot, which is our problem with it. It would not, however, force workers to pay union dues even if one forms. The 49.9 percent could still say no-thanks under Virginia law.
Comment by c. trejbal — December 30, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
BTW, here's our editorial against card-check from 2007.
Comment by c. trejbal — December 30, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Ok, that helps a bit more Dan. When I first read of the card-check legislation, I just had a feeling that it would be bad news. Eliminating the secret ballot process for forming a union just opens the door to employee intimidation and harrassment, since it will be known openly who does and who does not support the union. The impact from that alone might threaten the right-to-work status of employees who do not opt for a new or existing union, so perhaps the existing law ought to be strengthened more, rather than a completely new law being introduced, in order to provide better legal protection for non-union employees and employees who do not choose unionization when it ultimately comes around from the new Federal law. I can just imagine the headlines now: Wal-Mart union strikes on Black Friday, chaos ensues as shoppers forced to use just one checkout line after spending hours in the store looking for assistance. Come to think of it, that wouldn't be too much different from today.
Comment by Other John — December 30, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
OJ, why are you scared of a union? RTEB, why are you opposed to unions? I am serious. I do not understand it. We are in the midst of an economic situation that is greatly exacerbated by the low incomes of working people and y'all seem to want to make the situation even worse. If employers treat their employees fairly, there will be no unions.
Comment by Allen Bunch — December 30, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Allen, our position on card-check is neither pro- nor anti-union. It is, however, pro-worker.
Comment by c. trejbal — December 30, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
If you truly believe your position is pro worker, it is only because you are lucky enough to never have been subjected to the coercion and abuse of a physically and economically tyranical employer. As a worker, I would much rather face pressure from coworkers and union representatives than from the person who signs my paycheck. That I know from experience. As I said before, if the company treats me fairly, they have have nothing to fear from card check or secret ballot. Why do people like you always try to change the subject and avoid that issue?
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Allen,
I used to be a Union Steward for United Airlines.
I was never for more money just protection from unfair supervisors.
Today though it seems that Unions dont want to give anything back.
I agree that the top Mgt has some blame in this, but I have never for the life of me understood why workers would threaten a employer in this economy.
Thier are plenty of people that want jobs in Mexico and that is the problem with Unions today.
If you look at why Volvo went on strike one issue was that union members had to pay $5 more a month for health insurance. Looks like now alot of them are payin 100% of their insurance if they have any at all.
With unions the more senior you are, the less you do and the more you make.
Thats not fair to other employees either.
Comment by herb Krebs — January 2, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Mr. Krebs, this debate is not about the merits of unions in the work place. This debate is about how unions are formed. I can only guess at your motives but, your post sounds as if you have a crow to pick with whatever union was your representative. That is a totally different subject.
This debate is about the pressure faced by employees when some of the employees try to organize a union in their workplace. People opposed to card check legislation say they do not want employees exposed to intimidation by coworkers and union representatives. I say that those people are virtually unarmed in that situation. The company controls my paycheck and work assignment, they are the ones who engage in intimidation. Anyone who claims to be more intimidated by a union rep than by his boss is fudging reality.
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 2, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
I've never felt the antagonism you say is present between management and employees at any of the jobs I've ever worked. I've worked in manual labor, retail, transportation, and skilled technical positions and I've always had good relationships with the people who managed my checks. I applied for the jobs they advertised, negotiated what wage I would be paid that I felt was fair, and I faithfully carried out the work they requested that I do. By doing that, I've been rewarded with pay raises, promotions, and better opportunities, and I did not need a union to help any of that.
Perhaps some people don't feel that they can accomplish these things without a 3rd party, I don't know. I do feel that some industries are better off by union involvement, such as mining or steel-making, for example, where there are significant safety concerns that are present day-to-day where having a union can benefit workers. Most other industries and work segments, I don't see what positives a union could bring to the workers.
By keeping balloting for union formation a secret process, as any election should be, it ensures a fair approach to the formation of a union and prevents any harrassment of employees by those who are pro-union or union reps. Keep things the way they are, they have worked well for the past century-plus. Besides, the Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to Mexico pleading for them to avoid enacting the EXACT SAME legislation they now want to pass here, for the same reason of protecting the integrity of the workplace by keeping the union ballot process secretive....and the same reason that they now are ignoring just a few years later.
Comment by Other John — January 2, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Allen,
My point is, that when unions are formed it has its good and bad.
Unions were good at on time.
Now days employers know they need to keep good people and they pay accordingly.
Employers dont want a organized union telling them how to run the business.
So yes you are goin to see intimidation from employers.
I for one dont want a secret ballot.
If people want to start a union and it passes then so be it. I am not totally against unions i just say lets not be coward about it and stand up for what u believe. Yes you can get fired for such things.
I work for a world wide co. that has hundreds of thousands of people i can only imagine what would happen if we started a union. Most unions are started at big corp. I cant blame the co. shareholders would have a fit.
Comment by herb Krebs — January 2, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Actually, no, Herb, you cannot, legally anyway, get fired for union activity. That violates the National Labor Relations Act.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — January 2, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Y'all are still trying to avoid or change the subject. We are not discussing day to day operations of a company. The proposed card check legislation only concerns procedures followed during the time that some employees are trying to get a union to represent them. The subject is whether or not employees are subject to more intimidation during an organizing drive by their coworkers and union reps or by the company and their supervisors. As I have stated before, if the company is treating their employees fairly it will never get to a card check or a secret ballot.
Now, since some of you are more interested in your personal opinions than you are in the proposed legislation, I have a suggestion. Try asking an employee of Lincoln Electric to sign a union card. Then, ask an employee of Sullair to sign a union card. After doing that that research, tell me what you think of the state of American labor. Above all, tell me how you would rate the company you work for on a scale of 1-10.
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 2, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
You are correct Dan.
But I also found out that if you work for a company her in Virginia and the home office is in a Union state in order to work for them you must join.
As was with United airlines.
Comment by herb Krebs — January 2, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
Allan,
On a scale of 1 to 10 i would give my co. an 8, there is always room for improvement on both sides.
Comment by herb Krebs — January 2, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
It should be obvious that unions destroy employment. What better example is there than the big 3 auto companies? Obama urged Bush to give more money to auto unions and supports EFCA leaving workers open to coercion. Funny how CEO pay is targeted but not union compensation.
How come labor in the South is so successful without unions? Time to let the chickens roost in socialist Detroit.
Comment by Jim — January 2, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
I wish the politicians would just admit that this whole card check legislation deal is nothing but Democrat payback to the unions for campaign contributions and getting out the vote. The UAW bailout is the same thing, vote buying. I don't see how allowing union activists to intimidate workers at a business into signing a card without the option of a secret ballot is good for the workers.
Let's call it what it is.
Comment by Nick — January 3, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Herb, did you do the research before you posted your opinion of your company?
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 3, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Jim, you still can't seem to stay on track with the subject of this post so I will comment on the subject that you want to discuss. I could care less whether you love or hate unions. Our economy cannot recover until the income of our working people recovers. If companies will pay fair wages and benefits without the existence of unions, that is what I want. Just remember, without a well paid workforce there is no demand for whatever goods a business provides. By the way, where can I read about Obama urging Bush to give money to auto unions?
Nick, I cannot be intimidated by coworkers but I can be intimidated by the man who signs my check.
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 3, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
I don't understand how open card-check could make a difference in a right-to-work state like Virginia. Once the union is organized, everybody will know who's in it and who's not, anyway.
Comment by Ed H — January 3, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Allen, our economy won't improve without increased employment. Less people earn money with unionization as unions simply lower the supply of jobs. Also, unions result in less competitive products. Therefore, the economy doesn't work well under unionization, which is the main reason union power has been eroding for decades. The big 3 auto debacle is an outstanding example of union failure.
Now I'm waiting to hear what you call a "fair" wage. This should be interesting. There is only one wage, and that is where supply meets demand in a global market. The principle of employment at will lets the employee and employer determine if you are receiving an acceptable wage. If you feel cheated, then you go elsewhere. If you are overpaid and inflexible to adjustments, then the employer can let you go. If you can't make it as an auto employee for example, then it's time to reallocate and reinvest your skills to another industry. Easy? No. Necessary? Yes.
"The co-chair of Obama's transition team told reporters this afternoon the president-elect wants to see automakers get additional help beyond receiving the $25 billion Congress already appropriated to help companies retool facilities to produce more fuel efficient vehicles."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081111/AUTO01/811110426/1148
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/10/Obama_urges_Bush_on_auto_industry_rescue/UPI-60011226322549/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11112008/news/politics/obama_urges_bush_on_auto_industry_138181.htm
Comment by Jim — January 4, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
Get real. Unions have nothing to do with the supply of jobs. The amount of jobs available is determined by the demand created by the amount of money consumers have to spend. A fair wage is whatever it takes to keep your employees from voting to go union. Virginia Woodworking in Bristol buys lumber locally and ships it to China to be machined. As you said, "our economy won't improve without increased employment." Do you honestly think we can survive in a global market? I do not care whether it is union, nonunion, or Martian, we have to have jobs that pay enough for working people to support a family or our entire economy will fail.
I read every word of all three links that you posted. No where, not even one word said anything about giving money to auto unions.
You said quite a bit about who to blame for our problems, how about a suggestion on how to go about solving these problems.
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 4, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
About the only way to manage in the current global economy, as I see it, is to either get China and the other foreign labor sources to adopt the same envirnmental and working standards that the US and Europe have worked nder for decades, causing the cost of their goods to be higher. That, in turn, would make the cost of domestically produces goods to be more competitive with foreign imports, re-creating a domestic manufacturing sector. Other ideas would be totally changing the corporate/consumer tax structure to make the US a tax haven for manufacturers, bringing those jobs back. The solutions are not tied to having or not having unions, in an overall sense.
Comment by Other John — January 4, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
"The amount of jobs available is determined by the demand..." - Allen
If we agree that firms want to maximize profit (revenue-cost), then demand is only HALF of the equation that determines employment. Supply of a product and therefore employment is a function of the BOTH price received (demand) AND the cost to produce such as capital and labor costs (supply). Since labor costs are one of the most significant inputs of production, unions have a direct impact on employment.
"Do you honestly think we can survive in a global market?" - Allen
We do not have a choice. Globalization results in economic growth, for example, US exports were responsible for 12% of our GDP last year and that share is growing. We have to remain competitive through investment in our skills to reap the benefits. To remain isolated economically will result in missing out on both trade and investment in our country. I do agree with Other John that reducing taxes in the US will make investment attractive and bring more jobs here. Note that a significant portion of the party that elected Obama pushes for economic isolationism and that's the wrong policy for our success.
Comment by Jim — January 5, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Globalization results in growth for China not the US. We go in the hole to China over 600 million dollars every single day. When you spend more than you take in, you are in the process of going broke. You are right about surviving in a global market, we can do that. All we have to do is pay our employees about 20 cents an hour.
Comment by Allen Bunch — January 5, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
I understand your concerns HCS, but I don't agree that globalization is all bad. From reading the opinions of top economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Gary Becker, I believe that globalization creates more opportunities than it does costs. Some inefficient industries will be destroyed, and whether there will be alternative jobs for the displaced workers is a real concern. I think that the answer depends on how well globalization is managed.
I also believe that although more people will be better off under globalization, there will be greater income disparity. Example: You may have the necessities you need to live comfortably, but your neighbors may build extreme wealth. Most of the benefits will accrue to those with the most skills and education. The uneducated will most likely continue to live in or near poverty.
My guess is that the UAW members would rather accept lower wages than to lose their jobs altogether. I also believe that UAW workers would be fairly indifferent to changing industries if their opportunities were similar. Many economists feel that labor needs to be much more mobile to realize gains under globalization. Basically, we may have to move far more than ever before across industries, regions, and countries. The whole relationship of today's economy is so complex that I think both of us can oversimplify the problem and the solution.
It's interesting that you mention China because it is a leading example of a beneficiary of globalization. But the costs and benefits of China's success are far reaching. Consider Joseph Stiglitz response to a question regarding China's impact on the world:
"China will have an impact on almost every country in the world, rich or poor, small or large, but its impacts will differ markedly from country to country. Overall, I believe that growth is positive sum, not zero-sum: China’s growth benefits not only the citizens of China, but contributes to a strong global economy. Many around the world benefit from the inexpensive goods it produces; China’s large purchases abroad have benefited many producers around the world; and competition from China has kept inflation in check, and that has allowed Central Banks to maintain lower interest rates than they otherwise would have had; and that too has contributed to strong global growth.
But the impacts are varied. China’s rapid growth has been contributing to high commodity prices, which have been enormous benefit to the producers of these commodities, but imposed additional costs on competing users. Many factories both in the advanced industrial countries and in developing countries have found that they cannot compete; factories have been shut down and workers face unemployment, or, when they do get another job, lower wages.
Small economies both are more vulnerable and face more opportunities. They are more vulnerable, because they are often less diversified, and an industry in which they have specialized can be wiped out almost overnight. But they face more opportunities, because if they find a niche in which China has a strong demand, their prospects may be very bright. Parts of Ethiopia are doing so much better today than they have in the past, because China has begun to buy sesame seeds. Iceland, with its highly educated labor force, will almost surely find a niche in which it will excel."
Comment by Jim — January 6, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
?? Sorry Jim, I haven't been keeping up with this thread or commenting on it but you are addressing me? Perhaps you meant someone else.
Comment by HCS — January 6, 2009 @ 2:19 pm