Fallacies of Literalism

I have no doubt whatsoever that Republican pollster John McLaughlin can devise question wording that makes card-check unionization come out as unpopular, but whenever I see a result like that I always wonder why people bother. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of voters have no well-formed opinions about the Employee Free Choice Act whatsoever and even if you could get them to form an opinion on it, it almost certainly won't be a decisive voting issue for the overwhelming majority of people.

And that's not because of some special characteristic of EFCA, it's just the way politics works. No real voters form opinions on hundreds of separate "issues" then score their political options according to their positions on the issues, and then decide who to vote for. If anything, the causation is likely to run in the other direction -- if all the politicians you trust tell you card check will lead to tyranny, you'll think that card check will lead to tyranny; but if the politicians you perceive as being on your side tell you card check is good, you'll think card check is good. Nevertheless, pollsters seem to be able to gin up a surprising volume of business by doing these kind of single-issue polls.

Are people just eager to waste their money? In this case I suppose the rationale is that McLaughlin knows there are enormously wealthy interests who would very much like to invest in fighting EFCA, so if he can somehow position himself as the go-to guy for EFCA-related messaging he'll earn himself a nice bundle of cash.

Comments

Let's cut through the partisan hackery, shall we? The question is whether union elections should be conducted by secret ballot or should a worker be intimidated into voting for a union with a couple of beefy wise guys in windbreakers looking over their shoulder?

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2008 12:58 PM

but whenever I see a result like that I always wonder why people bother.

They do it because it gives them another argument to use in their lobbying efforts - see, it's an unpopular piece of legislation. As part of the overall lobbying budget, the cost of the poll is probably not very significant.

Posted by blah | April 2, 2008 1:01 PM

What blah said. It's a bought talking point one can then throw out there in a stump speech or on Hardball with Chris Matthews. The goal isn't to find some truth, but to clutter up the discourse with noise.

Posted by JH | April 2, 2008 1:22 PM

What blah said. It's a bought talking point one can then throw out there in a stump speech or on Hardball with Chris Matthews. The goal isn't to find some truth, but to clutter up the discourse with noise.

Posted by JH | April 2, 2008 1:23 PM

It doesn't surprise me that most Americans, if asked specifically, would indeed find the prospect of non-anonymous card-check voting objectionable. Heck - I find it problematic, and I'm pro-union! It's so obviously open to manipulation, extortion, and bribery, that I'm surprised to find it still pushed by anyone who's not directly employed by a union.

Posted by dcuser | April 2, 2008 1:26 PM

Fred appears ready to base labor policy on repeated viewings of On the Waterfront and The Sopranos. Back here in the real world, we recognize that it's bosses who pervert the process, bully and coerce workers, and it's their fault that the NLRB election system no longer works.

Bosses set out to destroy the Board election process. They've largely succeeded. I suppose I'd be willing to go with a law banning all company input into anything to do with workers' decisions to form a union (e.g., strict neutrality, serious civil and/or criminal consequences for violating it) but the fact that corporations have 1st Amendment rights makes that pretty much impossible. So, the only way to keep bosses from running roughshod over workers is card check -- which is SOP in Canada, and in many agreements bosses reach once they've gotten enough heat from their own workers.

Posted by Pesto | April 2, 2008 1:45 PM

Matt,

Can you please explain to me the moral case for unionization? As a small businessperson I can't see the difference between a union and a protection racket. The way I see it I take all the risk and the union takes all the reward because they are more numerous.

I understand the legal arguements for it but why is it considered moral and not the equivalent of blackmail?

Posted by CM | April 2, 2008 1:59 PM

Matt,

I think it's also important to note that a disturbing number of people conflate "Muslim" with an ethnicity, much like the disconnect between those of Hebrew descent being Jews (or not) and those who merely practice the Jewish faith but are of, say, western-European ancestry. To that end, it's reasonable (to an ignoramus) for someone to have been "born a Muslim" and that they will always be one. Tigers, stripes, etc.

Posted by John Richard | April 2, 2008 1:59 PM

"The question is whether union elections should be conducted by secret ballot or should a worker be intimidated into voting for a union with a couple of beefy wise guys in windbreakers looking over their shoulder? "

Fred, this comment shows a clear lack of knowledge concerning Union Elections, Unfair Labor Practices (ULP charges), Union Busting techniques, or what happens on the ground during a Union organizing campaign.

Despite GOP bloviating (similar to "Voter Fraud" bloviations, equally absurd), Unions are generally not the entity pressuring and intimidating workers. Employers (who seek to prevent Unionizing of their workforce) are. I'm sure low-wage workers reading this are *shocked* to find out. ;-)

Employers intimidate workers in various ways, with all kinds of clever tactics developed over the years by "Consultants." They "convince" workers it is "in their interest" to not become Unionized, essentially by telling them the Company will shut down and they'll "all" be out of jobs if they Unionize (almost always a complete lie). And they usually throw a few "if you don't Unionize, I'll give you _____ and _____ and _____" which is very specifically illegal but always done by Employers, who "Suffer" wrist-slap $1,000 fines levied months after elections are held, paid .

I have worked for the lawyers for Construction Unions in New York, so I have every idea how corrupt and Mob-affiliated Unions can be. I am in no way stating all Unions are great, or everybody needs to be Unionized.

I have participated in elections for 2 and 3 person bargaining units, and believe me, if you had any inkling of the time, resources and $$ wasted on such elections, you would realize a bargaining unit of less than 5 (especially easy to intimidate, b/c of lack of coworker support) should be able to Unionize by signing 3 cards.

That's the issue we're talking about. Forget the GOP bloviating, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

You want the government to spend $10,000's and hundreds of Court hours to determine whether 2 guys get a Union. There is no dumber or more wasteful process than a "secret ballot election" with 2 voters (!! and I've filed those election petitions, seen those elections, and contested the results... Believe me, I know, I've been there!)

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:11 PM

Pesto,

I know you've worked as an organizer, so you've clearly had more experience with labor/management conflicts than I have, but I do have one objection:

If the secret ballot elections are tainted by management influence, how is card-check going to improve on this? Now, not only wouldmanagement know who's trying to organize, they would also know who is voting for a union. It seems to me that this would increase the potential for retaliation, not reduce it.

And that's assuming that the pro-union side is inhumanly well behaved.

Posted by heedless | April 2, 2008 2:12 PM

"The question is whether union elections should be conducted by secret ballot or should a worker be intimidated into voting for a union with a couple of beefy wise guys in windbreakers looking over their shoulder? "

Fred, this comment shows a clear lack of knowledge concerning Union Elections, Unfair Labor Practices (ULP charges), Union Busting techniques, or what happens on the ground during a Union organizing campaign.

Despite GOP bloviating (similar to "Voter Fraud" bloviations, equally absurd), Unions are generally not the entity pressuring and intimidating workers. Employers (who seek to prevent Unionizing of their workforce) are. I'm sure low-wage workers reading this are *shocked* to find out. ;-)

Employers intimidate workers in various ways, with all kinds of clever tactics developed over the years by "Consultants." They "convince" workers it is "in their interest" to not become Unionized, essentially by telling them the Company will shut down and they'll "all" be out of jobs if they Unionize (almost always a complete lie). And they usually throw a few "if you don't Unionize, I'll give you _____ and _____ and _____" which is very specifically illegal but always done by Employers, who "Suffer" wrist-slap $1,000 fines levied months after elections are held, paid .

I have worked for the lawyers for Construction Unions in New York, so I have every idea how corrupt and Mob-affiliated Unions can be. I am in no way stating all Unions are great, or everybody needs to be Unionized.

I have participated in elections for 2 and 3 person bargaining units, and believe me, if you had any inkling of the time, resources and $$ wasted on such elections, you would realize a bargaining unit of less than 5 (especially easy to intimidate, b/c of lack of coworker support) should be able to Unionize by signing 3 cards.

That's the issue we're talking about. Forget the GOP bloviating, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

You want the government to spend $10,000's and hundreds of Court hours to determine whether 2 guys get a Union. There is no dumber or more wasteful process than a "secret ballot election" with 2 voters (!! and I've filed those election petitions, seen those elections, and contested the results... Believe me, I know, I've been there!)

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:13 PM

"The question is whether union elections should be conducted by secret ballot or should a worker be intimidated into voting for a union with a couple of beefy wise guys in windbreakers looking over their shoulder? "

Fred, this comment shows a clear lack of knowledge concerning Union Elections, Unfair Labor Practices (ULP charges), Union Busting techniques, or what happens on the ground during a Union organizing campaign.

Despite GOP bloviating (similar to "Voter Fraud" bloviations, equally absurd), Unions are generally not the entity pressuring and intimidating workers. Employers (who seek to prevent Unionizing of their workforce) are. I'm sure low-wage workers reading this are *shocked* to find out. ;-)

Employers intimidate workers in various ways, with all kinds of clever tactics developed over the years by "Consultants." They "convince" workers it is "in their interest" to not become Unionized, essentially by telling them the Company will shut down and they'll "all" be out of jobs if they Unionize (almost always a complete lie). And they usually throw a few "if you don't Unionize, I'll give you _____ and _____ and _____" which is very specifically illegal but always done by Employers, who "Suffer" wrist-slap $1,000 fines levied months after elections are held, paid .

I have worked for the lawyers for Construction Unions in New York, so I have every idea how corrupt and Mob-affiliated Unions can be. I am in no way stating all Unions are great, or everybody needs to be Unionized.

I have participated in elections for 2 and 3 person bargaining units, and believe me, if you had any inkling of the time, resources and $$ wasted on such elections, you would realize a bargaining unit of less than 5 (especially easy to intimidate, b/c of lack of coworker support) should be able to Unionize by signing 3 cards.

That's the issue we're talking about. Forget the GOP bloviating, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

You want the government to spend $10,000's and hundreds of Court hours to determine whether 2 guys get a Union. There is no dumber or more wasteful process than a "secret ballot election" with 2 voters (!! and I've filed those election petitions, seen those elections, and contested the results... Believe me, I know, I've been there!)

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:13 PM

"The question is whether union elections should be conducted by secret ballot or should a worker be intimidated into voting for a union with a couple of beefy wise guys in windbreakers looking over their shoulder? "

Fred, this comment shows a clear lack of knowledge concerning Union Elections, Unfair Labor Practices (ULP charges), Union Busting techniques, or what happens on the ground during a Union organizing campaign.

Despite GOP bloviating (similar to "Voter Fraud" bloviations, equally absurd), Unions are generally not the entity pressuring and intimidating workers. Employers (who seek to prevent Unionizing of their workforce) are. I'm sure low-wage workers reading this are *shocked* to find out. ;-)

Employers intimidate workers in various ways, with all kinds of clever tactics developed over the years by "Consultants." They "convince" workers it is "in their interest" to not become Unionized, essentially by telling them the Company will shut down and they'll "all" be out of jobs if they Unionize (almost always a complete lie). And they usually throw a few "if you don't Unionize, I'll give you _____ and _____ and _____" which is very specifically illegal but always done by Employers, who "Suffer" wrist-slap $1,000 fines levied months after elections are held, paid .

I have worked for the lawyers for Construction Unions in New York, so I have every idea how corrupt and Mob-affiliated Unions can be. I am in no way stating all Unions are great, or everybody needs to be Unionized.

I have participated in elections for 2 and 3 person bargaining units, and believe me, if you had any inkling of the time, resources and $$ wasted on such elections, you would realize a bargaining unit of less than 5 (especially easy to intimidate, b/c of lack of coworker support) should be able to Unionize by signing 3 cards.

That's the issue we're talking about. Forget the GOP bloviating, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

You want the government to spend $10,000's and hundreds of Court hours to determine whether 2 guys get a Union. There is no dumber or more wasteful process than a "secret ballot election" with 2 voters (!! and I've filed those election petitions, seen those elections, and contested the results... Believe me, I know, I've been there!)

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:16 PM

Heedless -- Fascinating concern!

I've been on the lawyer end of Unfair Labor Practice charges, filing petitions for elections (Union), etc. so I can take a stab here.

The reason is you can sign a card at any time, so your Employer doesn't get the chance to:

1. Fire you prior to an election for some dubious reason (b/c you'll vote Union).
2. Tell you the company will "shut down" if you Unionize (almost always a complete lie).
3. Tell you they'll give you more O/T and benefits and vacation and sick days... IF you'd only just not vote for the Union, because if you do that they're just going to shut down/fire-employees/make-your-life-miserable.

Union card-based certification is absolutely essential with small bargaining units.

Do you know how much $$ and Court hours are wasted on "secret ballot elections" for units of 2 people both of whom want to Unionize? (you don't, but I do...)

Can you not see the logistical and resource-wasting nightmare we create when we insist on "secret" procedural ballot elections, which take months and months of lawyerly battling to materialize (and elections can be delayed for more months, even years, depending on circumstances)?

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:26 PM

I apologize to all for the multiple huge posting, that was absolutely unintentional (kept telling me the server f'd up, but apparently it was posting each time)

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:29 PM

Pesto & CM:

Pesto -- I am entirely on your side, know exactly where you come from. However, I have worked with Construction Unions here in NY -- And there is still Mob concerns there. I'm just saying, let's be fair. NOt all Unions are 100% hunky-dory. But absolutely correct, it is Employers who pervert the process, and the NLRB act was virtually set-up to destroy Unions and Unionization by forcing Unions to fight eachother for bargaining units in the "secret ballot elections" other posters seem to be gushing about. They don't understand how un-secret and un-appetizing Union elections are from start to finish (they'll never participate in one, how can you blame them?).

CM -- As a small businessman, in a country where Unions have no power, you will probably never be confronted with employees wishing to Unionize. If you are, you will hire a Consultant and probably bust the effort, but if your workers do succeed and Unionize, you will refuse to agree to any contract with the Union and it will take them years to get a penny from you, if ever. (I'm not spilling any beans b/c your Union-busting Consultant will appraise you of this on hour 0, when you pay them their 5-figure check) Quite possibly, the workers in question will detest the situation newly created (your Consultant will prod you into doing everything legal and quasi-legal to get the likely-to-Unionize employees to quit; They have binders full of ideas for how to get your workers to hate their jobs & their lives) and will quit or be fired before the Union reaps any benefits from you. So no worries, OK?

On the moral side -- Unions essentially created the benefits structure workers enjoy today (health, pension, disability, training funds, etc.). Without Unions, we'd still likely have 8 year olds working in garment factories (! is Labor History unfamiliar?).

But on the basic level, Unions give workers the right to bargain collectively, because they have more power bargaining collectively than they do bargaining as individuals. This is especially true of low-wage workers, who tend to be less (or "under") educated and easily intimidated.

I understand you feel you take "all the risk." Workers also take huge "risk:" When you have a brilliant year, you aren't required to give them anything extra, even though they (more than likely) largely helped produce that outcome for you -- Hopefully, you're a "good Boss" and give bonuses when possible and provide affordable benefits (many/most businesses don't). On the other hand, when your business goes belly-up, the workers do lose their jobs, whether or not they helped cause the failure (changing marketplace, new competitors, all kinds of reasons businesses fail that have nothing to do with workforce productivity; In fact, business failure is rarely related to productivity). So they take considerable "risk" working for you.

Allowing cards authorization is specifically meant for small bargaining units (can't remember the logistics of the bill, but it limits card authorization to smaller units).

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 2:53 PM

"And that's assuming that the pro-union side is inhumanly well behaved. "

Heedless -- also note,

When you're talking about an organizing (unionizing) effort, you're (likely) talking about organizers from a Union entering a workplace, talking to workers about workplace conditions (usually the biggest element) and compensation packages (the lesser element), and telling them they will have more power if they bargained collectively as members of a Union. And, btw, after a Union contract is signed, then the Employer won't be able to fire them b/c they don't like their shoes (yes, that is legal, *YOU* are probably an "at-whim employee" and can be fired b/c they don't like your shoes or any of a host of other reasons so long as the reasons are "non-discriminatory," this is not illegal and never has been and probably never will be in this country, and it does happen all the time).

But back to my point --

You're talking about Union organizers walking into a workplace, where they do not work, talking to people whom they are meeting for the first time, asking them to join a Union they probably have no personal connection to.

Vs. Employers who hired the employees, trained the employees, give the employees work, determine how well the employees perform, ask the employees to work overtime, tell employees if they get vacation days, determine employee raises, hand employees their paychecks, give employees their bonuses, determine the employee health plan, contribute (or not) to their 401(k) or pension, etc. etc. Need we say more?

You think this power structure setup is one in which our main worry is... What power the Union Organizers exert over the process? (can you not sense the absurdity; The GOP has managed to fool the MSM on this point, so I don't blame you, but it really is fundamentally ridiculous to look at these situations through this lens)

The Union Organizers are essentially powerless until the workers Unionize. The Employer holds all the cards (and then some! - bonuses, raises, benefits, vacation, etc. etc. infinite ways to sweeten the pot [if you don't vote for that pesky Union])

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 3:23 PM

heedless,

If the secret ballot elections are tainted by management influence, how is card-check going to improve on this? Now, not only would management know who's trying to organize, they would also know who is voting for a union. It seems to me that this would increase the potential for retaliation, not reduce it.

A couple of things: first, there's no need for the boss to even know that the workers are interested in organizing in the first place. The workers meet amongst themselves, sign cards or a petition, then submit it to the Board. And even if the boss finds out that it's going on, the boss doesn't get the cards/petition -- the Board does.

So the boss needn't know who's organizing, certainly not any more than the status quo, and they might well find out only after the union is certified by the Board. In the end, this is the workers' decision, and the boss should have absolutely nothing to say about it one way or the other.

Lastly, to echo some of what Miguel said, although the process allows for that kind of secrecy, the strongest unions are formed by workers who are willing and eager to wear buttons, to tell their boss to his face that they're organizing a union. Union busters don't advise bosses to attack the strongest, most open union supporters, except with offers of promotions into management. They target single parents, people who've taken large amounts of sick leave, people who just bought a house -- folks who are particularly vulnerable to being told that they'll lose everything if they "bring in the union." Technically a fair amount of this is, as Miguel says, illegal, but the penalties are absolutely meaningless.

CM, in answer to your questions, and to extend what Miguel says about risks, the moral case for unions is that workers deserve the right to negotiate and agree to the conditions under which they work, and without collective bargaining the power balance is so skewed towards the company that the idea of a mutual, negotiated agreement is basically meaningless. How many people put up with awful bosses, ridiculous amounts of unpaid OT, denials of vacation requests, unsafe working conditions, etc because they need health insurance or a paycheck? If that's not blackmail, then neither is a strike.

One last little comment: the costs of organizing now are so prohibitively high that only big, established unions do any organizing any more. Although EFCA would certainly help workers organize with established unions, it would help even more with workers who just want to set up their own, independent organizations.

Posted by Pesto | April 2, 2008 3:29 PM

Pesto -- This is really interesting, b/c you have clearly been on the organizing end while I've only ever been on the Lawyer-end: ULP charges and Petitions-for-election and interventions-by-other-Unions-into-petitions and contesting-election-results and contract-negotiations (often-leading-nowhere).

"One last little comment: the costs of organizing now are so prohibitively high that only big, established unions do any organizing any more."

That is the heart of it for me. And the "secret ballot elections" are no small part of that enormous cost.

I have nightmares remembering the amount of time it took to bring 2, 3, 4 and 5 employee bargaining units even to the point of having elections: Our poor Unions had to waste $10,000s in Fees, and we were an exceedingly low-cost (and discounts on the bill) miniature Firm, so they could reap $100s per year in benefits money.

The NLRA is where the problem is. The Act is a joke, but instead of people in this country realizing the problem is the loss of Unions and lack of organizing, everybody seems to think it's evil Union bosses that need to be stopped.

Allowing small units to organize based on Cards would be a small step in the right direction, and as you can see the GOP will fight tooth and nail against it and fool every Pundit and MSM outlet across the USA that this is somehow in the best interest of low-wage workers.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 3:39 PM

Pesto --

I guess I knew about the tendency to not outright fire heavily pro-Union workers...

But it certainly does happen, b/c I remember several fights about this exact issue...

I admit freely, Construction Union workers are skilled laborers (though not overly educated ;-) who make significant $$, and the Unions were formerly all Mob, and there are 100s of employers using many of the same workers ... So it's different from most examples.

But nobody else on the planet can say they've filed 600 petitions for Union elections, and watched 100+ Union elections, except yours truly (Go ahead and check me, but I doubt it -- The Board in Metrotech Center, Brooklyn were ready to kill us b/c they'd never seen more than a dozen petitions filed at once, and I brought in around 650 in a stack!).

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 3:49 PM

"Although EFCA would certainly help workers organize with established unions, it would help even more with workers who just want to set up their own, independent organizations."

Brilliant point, Pesto!

That is a good crux of this issue in many ways.

They've set up the "system" so long established Unions will fight eachother over bargaining units until they're both dead.

Meanwhile, as you point out, no new Union has a prayer's chance of fronting the $$$$$ needed to organize, and related (Lawyer) Fees.

But the National Labor Relations Act (like "Clean Skies") was never about helping Labor across the nation and making it easier for workers to organize. Silly literalism!! *chuckle*

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 2, 2008 3:58 PM

"I have no doubt whatsoever that Republican pollster John McLaughlin can devise question wording that makes card-check unionization come out as unpopular..."

Right.

But, funny how Matt's skepticism about survey question wording dries up whenever he stumbles upon a question slanted to produce a pro-immigration response.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM

I think you underestimate the level of antipathy most Americans feel toward unions regardless of the good they have done in the past or the merit of the future policies they promote. Labor has a huge PR problem, partly of its own doing.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | April 2, 2008 7:31 PM