| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Big Unions Angle to Eliminate Small Ones
We've talked about it several times here on the blog; the hostile takeover of smaller unions. It has been Andy Stern's main modus operandi (President of the Service Employees International Union or SEIU). The idea is to roll into the territory of a local, smaller union, make back room deals with the employers to get their assistance, and then lead a forced take over of that smaller union eventually to vote it out of existence. Thereby the little unions that might stand in the way of the mega unions are eliminated and the mega unions now controlling everything from the top down get more even more massive.
It's a perfectly legitimate strategy, of course... except for the fact that it makes the lie to every purported "principle" that unions claim to have. Local control becomes dashed and democracy summarily eliminate, yet local control and democratic process are the central themes of unionism. Without them they are little different than the supposedly evil corporate maters bent on domination that union claim their employers are. If a union member cannot feel that his local representatives are actually there for him then that impersonal attitude is no different than uncaring masters of industry.
Yet, this strong-arm takeovers of smaller unions is the current rage among big unions. And it is being noticed.
Last week there was a big pow wow of 12 of the nation's biggest unions. They mean to join together to work toward enlarging unionism in the American workplace. But the smaller unions are balking because they know that the larger the union group is the more chance they will be eliminated.
The 12 could not agree upon a plan to create a governing council and one of the reasons is power.
The larger unions want to create a powerful executive committee, and one divisive issue is how much power medium-size and small unions would have. The small unions oppose demands that they be forced to merge into larger unions.
And they are right, too. If this council or umbrella organization is created it will naturally tend to aggregate more and more power unto itself and that power WILL tend to eliminate smaller, weaker entities.
If unions start such an group, small unions are doomed. And, we will see that unions aren't at all interested in democracy or local control. They are only interested in amassing power, the sort of power that will corrupt unions hopelessly.
Let's hope these smaller unions are smart enough to understand that.
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!


Comments
Question for WTH
You forgot to answer my question from your anti-union post of yesterday:
Since you say that the EFCA takes away the private ballot: will you please post the language from the bill that has that effect?
You are a dupe
I didn't answer you because you are a dupe.. or a shill. The secret ballot will be done away with by the fact that the new 50+1 card check system will be enforced in place of any secret ballots. It doesn't MATTER if the Act itself does not expressly eliminate the secret ballot. The new 50+1 card check convention will mark the end of the secret ballot WITHOUT having to expressly say so. Only a fool doesn't see that. In fact, hundreds of union members and bosses have SAID as much. Just yesterday another ex-union boss said as much in an Arkansas newspaper, and he isn't the only one. Why do you think the unions put this idea in there in the first place?
At least back this up.
If you can't answer NRN's question, that only because no one can. Saul Anuzis is actually being paid big bucks by Newt to bat back pests like NRN. And even he can find the language in the bill that doesn't exist.
But you need to back up what you did assert as fact with some legislative language. Unless the bill actually says that, (which it may, I haven't read it) the only fool I see around here is one who thinks one should vote for or against legislation based only on his crystal ball predictions about what will happen in the future.
Thank you Mr. Huston for finally coming clean
Thank you Mr. Huston for finally coming clean:
If the Act does not expressly eliminate the secret ballot, rest assured the company will avail itself of the secret ballot process if and when it believes it is in its favor to do so, come hell or high water.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Let me see if I've got you here
Is it your argument that the private ballot is a precious and sacred thing, and you oppose EFCA in order to preserve it. You acknowledge that EFCA does not actually ban the precious and sacred thing - you just fear that workers will stop using the precious and sacred thing in favor of something that works better for them. So, you support EFCA in order to save the workers from themselves, who are too stupid to see what a precious and sacred thing the private ballot is.
Is that about right?
One other quick question:
If the private ballot is so precious and sacred, then why is it that card check can already be used to DE-certify a union?
So let me get this straight...
...a bigger union makes some sort of a deal with company officials to force their workers to sign de-certification cards against a smaller union. When that happens, the bigger union comes in and breaks enough kneecaps to get 50% +1 of the work force to sign the bigger union's pledge cards, and, boom, the bigger union is recognized.
I suppose this could happen. But this is not new. It's been going on for sometime now. I notice here again, it depends on an unscrupulous company to make it work.
If the Republican party would like to support a measure calling for the same procedure used to de-certify a union be used to certify a union; I'd be happy to support it, as I am sure most workers would be.
ex animo
davidfarrar