Broken Not Crushed living life as a statement, not an apology

Unions are pulling out the stops to change the rules governing workplace unionization. Can a pro-union person please explain to me how this sleight-of-hand is good, fair or virtuous? http://bit.ly/1cB5ji

When I posed this question on Twitter and Facebook, I got the following response:

…other than this obviously biased article, have you researched card-check legislation or Wal-Mart’s determined and bullying efforts to prevent worker representation?

Yes, I’ve been following card check for quite a while, and I’ve read several articles (also, ahem, heavily biased) blasting Wal-Mart for their supposedly “worker-unfriendly” policies. I generally have two responses about Wal-Mart and unionization.

1) I don’t blame them for trying to prevent it. Unions and their legacy costs often = death blow to profitability and low prices (which benefit the “common man”), and killing the Golden Goose.

2) Wal-Mart, when opening a new store, typically has an order of magnitude more applicants than job openings. Since a fair labor wage simply equals what a willing seller (the worker) and a willing buyer (Wal-Mart) agree upon, without coercion, it looks like an awful lot of people find Wal-Mart’s compensation fair.

I’m not sure what unionization would add to the equation. If people are willing and eager to work for what Wal-Mart offers, why is it anybody else’s business? IT IS NOT THE EMPLOYERS JOB TO PROVIDE THE EMPLOYEE WITH ANY PARTICULAR WAGE OR BENEFIT PACKAGE. Employees can leave at any time to seek greener pastures.

Also, aren’t most elections in this country won by a majority of those votes actually cast or am I missing something here? Should we count the number of 18yrs old + citizens or maybe the total number of registered voters in a given election and require a majority of that figure in order to win.

I think your elections point is a disanalogy. Political elections are mandated–politicians WILL be up for election, whether people turn out to the polls or not.

Not so with unionization. The sole purpose for those elections is to determine IF the workers want to unionize. So requiring only a majority of voters, instead of a majority of WORKERS, fails to answer the question if whether the workforce truly wants to unionize.

If the rules have been static for 70 years, and have required a majority of WORKERS to vote for unionization, then why the change now? There should be a more compelling reason than “union rolls are down”. That sounds an awful lot like, “People don’t want this, so change the rules to force it on them.”

What PROBLEM is this change (or card check) trying to solve? How is it more representative of workers’ wishes to remove the secret ballot and to lower the requirements for unionization? It looks to me like coercion. The opposite of risk, competition and free market.

Guess I don’t understand a lot of this, but then I’m just a common worker like my father, his father before him, etc.

What is an “uncommon” worker? When I hear statements like that it reminds me of Marx (I just finished the Communist Manifesto, with its focus on class envy and greed). I think that’s one reason a lot of people are getting weary of union rhetoric. I know it is for me.

Most of the rich in this country are first generation, which means they EARNED their money, and should be held up as examples rather than scorned.

Sam Walton created Wal-Mart (it wasn’t handed to him through inheritance or a no-bid contract), and it would not have become what it is today if it did not provide VALUE to people. He has enriched the lives of countless people, and has CREATED WEALTH for them, by providing employment, providing worldwide distribution for vendors, and making consumers’ dollars worth more through low prices. That seems to be to be the epitome of the American success story for the common man.