Blue Collar Muse

Because, in the one case, the secret ballot prevents the leadership from imposing its views on the party’s members, effectively preserving the democratic process, whereas, in the other, the secret ballot makes it easier for the employer to intimidate the workers, while weakening the ability of the workers themselves to organize. In the one case, the secret ballot protects individual rights from instituionalized power. In the other, it encourages said power to put thumbscrews to the individual. The Dem leadership isn’t going to be able to take some people aside and suggest that they might lose their Senate seats if Lieberman keeps his.

As someone who grew up in a union household - and, for that matter, in a Teamsters household, hardly a union renowned for its history of gentle, law-abiding behavior - I can tell you this much: unions aren’t perfect. They’re, by definition, made up of people, and “people” includes a lot of folks who are cocky or dumb or self-centered or even violent and aggressive. As such, relationships between unions and the average worker are never going to be all pixie dust and flowers.

But the people who are handing you the paycheck that puts food on the table for your family and kids are always going to have more power over you than a bunch of people who are dependent on that very same check. Those people, the employers, will always be stronger than the workers. And those people, also by definition, include a lot of folks who are cocky and dumb and self-centered and even violent and aggressive. They also include people who would rather fire every single employee in a location and close shop than see their company unionized. (See: Wal-Mart.)

I’d rather balance things out a bit and give the workers the power to organize than let the employers keep pushing them around in the name of a completely illusory brand of fairness.

@N.S. Allen -

This sort of reminds me of the Global Warming debate. If it’s hot out, it’s GW. If it’s cold out, it’s still GW.

You honestly expect me to believe that the Dems in the Senate are following a wise and beneficial procedure by having a secret ballot whereas Unions aren’t? And you expect me to believe that it is a secret ballot that threatens employees? How is that possibly true? More to the point, even if it is true, how is it worse than a non-secret ballot?

The entire example of Lieberman (as the union member) and his very public voting against his employer (The Donkey Men) and what they are doing to him now ought to argue against Card Check.

I agree with you that either Union or Management can be bad. But I believe that both Union and Management have the potential to mistreat workers based on a public vote. The only way to truly empower employees to vote their conscience and what they believe is best for them is to keep ballots secret.

How does “But the people who are handing you the paycheck that puts food on the table for your family and kids are always going to have more power over you than a bunch of people who are dependent on that very same check. Those people, the employers, will always be stronger than the workers.” not also apply to Unions? If the Union exists, they are the ones bargaining for your check and it’s your dues that keep them in business. They can’t escape that criticism.

To argue for a public ballot in any setting here in the USA is to go against every safeguard we have ever had. Tinhorn dictators like Saddam Hussein have public ballots and trumpet their 99% support from voters. In America, we have private ballots and trust the election results, even if we don’t like them (the events of 8 years ago aside) and move on.

I’m interested in what arguments you can make demonstrating danger to employees inherent in a private ballot which would not be made worse by a public ballot. I fail to see even the slightest chance you could convince me but I’m open to you trying.

Finally, the example you give of closing a biz before unionizing is a great example of what is good and right about our country. Everyone gets a vote. No where in your example did you assert that the vote to unionize was anything other than a fair vote and the desire of the employees. They voted for what they wanted. Then came the turn of the employer to vote. Why are his feelings about unionization more important to the process than those of employees?

As a small business owner, I understand the relationship between the two sides. But the bottom line is that if my people are unhappy with me they are free to pursue employment options elsewhere. Over the years, some have. And I am just as free to either let someone go or close down altogether if that is what is best for me. If I walked in and told everyone I was slashing their pay by 25%, I would get what I deserved from my employees. The same goes for employees who try to force a 25% pay increase on me.

Ultimately, Unions as they are currently embodied, are a parasitic interloper. They add unnecessary levels of bureaucracy and expense to both the work process and the end costs of goods and services. Employers aren’t completely stupid, although as you point out, some are. Most of those aren’t employers for long. Left alone, Management and Labor will find a suitable, if imperfect middle ground. Unions inject into the process needless cost and emotion.

If we learned nothing else from the Christmastime Longshoreman strike from a few years back and the current auto maker bailout discussion, we learned and are relearning that.

As you note, there was a phenomenal amount of violence against workers paid for by owners in the early days of unions. I am aware of that. My comment should have been more precise in it’s time reference. I was referring to today’s Labor/Management relations. I’m unaware of any killing going on of Labor by Management. For that matter, most of the Union goons going the other way are a thing of the past, as well.

And I agree with your assessment of the Union organizing process in at least some instances. I am aware of that, too. What is unclear is #1) How is a public ballot going to make it safer for the employee? By your example, any public knowledge of Union organizing efforts works against the employee, not for him. #2) Given your contention, how is a secret ballot not actually the only real protection for the employee. Your points took into account hypotheticals as in, “f a lot of people vote yes, and I work with some known supporters or hang around them, you might suspect me of being another union man and fire me for no reason.” Possible, but not guaranteed.

Thus it is equally possible that employee, by being able to cast a secret ballot, is protected from any vengeful acts by the employer as the employer cannot be sure.

I’ve re-read your comment and I cannot find an upside for secret ballots. They still seem to serve, as they do everywhere else, as a protection. Because the same could be said of the organizers. Both sides are competing for the affections of the worker and have an interest in his choice. The only way to protect himself is not to have to publicly declare. The unions make their pitch, Management makes theirs and Labor chooses secretly. How is this bad? What am I missing?

[…] Democratic Hypocrisy on Ballots… […]