|
Herman
Cain
Read Herman's bio and previous columns
February 9, 2009
Card Check Lies
When someone takes the
time to actually read the proposed "Card Check" legislation (H.R. 800),
and cut through the intentionally confusing legalese, you will discover
that many of the proponents of this legislation have lied. Review the
following side-by-side comparison of the rules for unionizing a
workplace now versus what the rules would look like if the
legislation passes, and you make the call.
|
RULES NOW |
RULES IF H.R.
800 Passes |
|
1. 30 percent
cards signed to get a vote for certification election |
1. 50 percent
+1 card signed get a union |
|
2. 45 days
until secret ballot vote |
2. Union can
demand recognition |
|
3. Campaign
discussions pros and cons |
3. No chance
for discussions; union views only |
|
4. Secret
Ballot Vote |
4. 90 days of
negotiations, if no deal, then 30 days of Federal Mediation |
|
5. If employees
vote to be represented by union, then parties bargain in good
faith |
5. If no
agreement after 120 days, then negotiations go to arbitration |
|
6. Federal
Mediation Service available to aid the parties |
6. Arbitrator
decides contract terms for automatic two-year term |
|
7. Contract
voted on by bargaining unit |
7. Employees
not allowed to vote on contract |
Currently, the
employees vote directly twice, one of which is the secret ballot, and a
third time through their bargaining representatives. Under the proposed
rules, the employees would sign a card and then they are totally out of
the process from that point on. Proponents think that's "free choice,"
and one spokesman appearing on Fox News said flatly that employees do
not lose the secret ballot. Where is it on the right side of the
comparison?
The next most often
used ridiculous argument for support of the legislation is that
"employers have become too powerful". Yes, I actually heard Sen. Chuck
Schumer say this when asked directly by a reporter. His evidence of this
was the number of workers who have chosen to not unionize over the last
20 years. Maybe employers are doing something right, but that's an
impossibility in the minds of die-hard liberals.
Proponents have also
alleged that employers intimidate employees into not joining a union.
That's ridiculous, because most employers work at trying to keep their
workers happy for competitive reasons and because it enhances employee
morale.
I personally know of
many more stories of union intimidation of employees than instances of
employer intimidation.
Proponents of this
legislation are in denial of businesses that have left this country or
been forced to shut down because of unreasonable union demands. The
union bosses do well, because they move on to the next business to put
the squeeze on and collect union dues, while thousands of workers are
unemployed. Ask the people who used to work for Eastern Airlines, or the
workers who have been the casualties of closed automobile plants.
Workers have every
right to unionize if they choose to do so, but it is not right to
establish rules that expand opportunities for union intimidation, take
away their right to a secret ballot and eliminate workers' right to even
vote on the final contract.
Employers have some
rights also. They have the right to simply shut the doors and let the
union bosses figure out how to feed people's families.
© 2009 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column # HC149.
Request
permission to publish here.
|
