In 1952, John Kenneth Galbraith, Harvard professor with a specialty in agricultural economics, had his hands full. Namely, a best selling book. It was called American Capitalism, the Concept of Countervailing Power. In it Galbraith made a case for a uniquely American solution for economic stability and progress. It entailed a grand bargain and balance between corporations, unions, and consumers. It contrasted with the rapidly emerging European efforts that focused on nationalization, central planning, and heavy regulation.
A key element in Galbraith’s view was the power of organized labor. In 1952 more than a third of the U.S. workforce were union members, despite the passage of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act (over Truman’s veto) in 1947. Moreover, most union members worked for private companies, with only a fraction of union members working for government organizations. Union membership provided a key force by which the “balance” was maintained. Corporate moves toward oligopoly, he argued, were restrained by labor unions.
Today, only 8% of the workforce is unionized-and what growth has occurred is largely in public sector unions. Meanwhile corporations have grown ever larger and more linked, with ever more power and sophistication to shape consumer behavior. The balance is broken.
Looked at from this long perspective, proposals such as the Employee Free Choice Act are restorative, not radical. Galbraith’s book was attacked in 1952 by the right-wing with particular fervor. The Chicago Tribune called it “Fair Deal trash in a Respectable Package.” The same attacks are happening now.
We’ve all been steeped in anti-union rhetoric for decades now, so it’s often difficult to see how this one bill can help restore a healthy balance to our system-and just in time, too. Everyone with progressive inclinations should support the Employee Free Choice Act.
but I don’t like the lose of people to have secret ballots for voting. The rest of the act sounds reasonable but surely progressive liberal people can’t support employees having to cast their vote in public and suffer any consequences? Our vote as citizens is one of the central tenets of our society and we do this privately and it appears to have worked for many years now. The same is true for employees deciding if they want to organize a union. Especially with the record of violence that unions have…
<
p>
<
p>Remove the lose of confidential voting and let the act stand on its own merit.
The “secret ballot” in a union election isn’t equivalent to the secret ballot in a government election. The union elections process isn’t fair.
<
p>The employer and it’s hired lawyers get to meet individually with its employees on work time and say whatever they want about the union. Union organizers have no access to the work place.
<
p>It’s illegal for employers to ask employees how they’re going to vote but there are many ways for supervisors to badger, bully or frighten employees regarding unions. They’ve got all day to do it and total control over their employees’ livelihood.
<
p>Punishment for violating the current labor law is minimal (no punitive damages) and employers often find it worthwhile to fire union supporters and deal with the consequences later.
And you mean the union folks won’t badger, bully, or frighten workers in regards to management!
Who has more power to influence an employee? Some organizer knocking on their door, their coworker, their supervisor, or the owner of their company?
<
p>Co-workers can sometimes exercise collective pressure on each other, but it’s nothing compared to the pressure of your employer.
<
p>Try talking about organizing a union at work. The first thing you’ll hear is – “we can’t do that, we’ll be fired.”
SOunds like no matter how the employee votes either management OR the union will be angry at them so it makes even more sense NOT to disclose how a person votes so let it remain a private decision. Thanks for making my point!
<
p>With respect to the issue of “secret ballots”:
<
p>Under the current laws the union can organize either via special (secret) ballot or by card check.
<
p>Under the proposed change to the law the union can organize either via special (secret) ballot or by card check…
<
p>The difference, you ask? Under the current law, employers can refuse to recognize card check. That’s it. That’s the difference. And, under the current system, that’s exactly what they do…Under the current system, a great deal of cards are signed, which are then duly ignored by employers, who force employees into secret ballots whilst simultaneously turning on the intimidation spigot… Time and time again, interestingly enough, efforts that can muster well over 50% of employees registrations (via card check) garner well under that under ‘secret ballots’. Oh, and did I mention, that employees openly organizing for unions face a 1 in 5 chance of being fired, nationwide? And that incidents of threatening to close plants seem to group around union efforts…
<
p> Under the proposed changes, unions can do either a secret ballot or enforce card check and employers can’t do a thing about it… Nobody will take away secret ballot.
<
p>Nobody is being disenfranchised here. The original law is being ‘uncorrupted’ if you will, and the whole and entire decision to form, or not to form, a union is being left to those employees with whom it ought to rest.
<
p>Other aspects of the Employee Free Choice Act toughen up sanctions and prosecution of illegal firings and other illegal, though oft practiced, acts of employers.
Galbreath thought that collective farming, like that which he supported in the old USSR, was the way to go. What kind of insight into economics was this idea? Later, he admitted his error and said that he just didn’t understand how difficult manual labor could be on a farm. This from someone who grew up on a farm! Now we are to take his words on organized labor as some sort of reason to give up the sanctity of the voting booth?
“All great economists are tall. There are two exceptions: John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman.” –George J. Stigler
<
p>
FWIW, this opinion of Galbraith is not widely shared. And yes, brilliant people say stupid things.
<
p>As far as I’m concerned, anybody who draws criticism from Friedrich Hayek and who worked closely with every Dem president from FDR to LBJ is probably pretty good…
<
p>I DO so hope you’ll forgive me for not taking your word for it…
It’s a pretty broad criticism. Krugman on Galbraith:
<
p>
I’m familiar with Krugmans arguments (he makes similar arguments against Robert Reich, as well) respecting (or not..) Galbraith. Galbraith would have been the first to tell you he was no mathematician and thus suffered a dearth of ‘street cred’ amongst economists who only take numbers seriously. (Krugmans originally from MIT where they teach musicians and philosophers how to differentiate under the integral sign…)
<
p>Galbraith and Krugman have a lot more in common, however, than their differences… Starting with an old-school liberalism tied to a serious rationality and supported by the stiffest of backbones. Krugman, himself an Asimov fan, ought to recognize the “psycho-historian” aspect of Galbraiths efforts. Despite Krugmans dig, Galbraith, IMHO, would have been the loudest of Krugmans amen chorus (of which I often count myself a member…)
<
p>
Not saying Krugman’s right or wrong. Just saying that the criticisms of Galbraith as an economist among his peers were broad.
One problem is many of our most powerful allies on other issues are anti-union in practice. The last thing many nonprofits want, e.g., is an organized workforce. And some leading progressive lawyers work in firms whose employment units are “committed to a union-free environment” as their marketing materials often say.
Without equivocation, forcing employees to cast
their vote in public raises an entire spectrum
of negative consequences to the employee. First,
if the vote fails to carry, they would be
subjected to possible action by
managers who resent the infringement of the union.
If the vote does carry an employee may have been
subject to intimidation to vote for the union or
if they oppose it they will suffer possible
isolation, intimidation of other employees.
Keep the vote confidential.
There are 2 types of unions. some unions do not
represent their members interests well. They are more interested in
building “the machine”, charging weekly dues and making
assessments on wages. These are usually service type unions, whose members wages are low, representation is poor, and the unions expect high turnover in membership.
So as long as the bosses have the silk suits, diamond
pinky ring and the lincoln the union is good. Make sure
before joining any union you know what you as an employee
will get. On the other hand a good union will have good
stewards, fight for your wages, your benefits, your rights, and will not let management walk all over the employees or the union. Unions have some excellent legal
tools available to them. Also a good union will have a
Labor-management agreement that keeps both the employees
and company in business and productive. There are some
unions that lose sight of why there are employees in
the first place. There has to be a recognition that a
companys success is in the employees interests. Good
union leadership will keep those interests balanced.
So when the company does succeed, the employees as well
as management reap the benefits of success. When times are
tough such as these you make concessions to keep your jobs
with stipulation of return down the road.
Unions are necessary, they helped build the middle
class. There are now many white collar workers. They need
unions to advocate for their rights, and represent them when an issue arises. But most importantly of all we need
to return to being an industrialized Nation with good paying jobs. With fair not free trade. Stop outsourcing,
and stop selling our innovations and intellectual property
to foreign entities. Educate future scientists and engineers. And stop the H1B visa that brings foreign engineers/scientists in, learn our technology and take
it home with them.
If a third of the workers at the worksite want an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act they can still go to the feds and have them conduct one.
<
p>The Employee Free Choice Act has penalties for anyone violating it, including anyone coercing an employee to sign a union card.
<
p>This straw man of “voting in public” is really a distraction. In union elections people generally know who supports the union and who doesn’t. You don’t think that there are negative consequences now for those supporting unions if they don’t win the election?
<
p>Employer pressure is so great that if there isn’t loud and enthusiastic support from a majority of employees by voting day, the union usually loses.
You don’t think that there are negative consequences now for those supporting unions if they don’t win the election?
<
p>But you forgot to mention…
<
p>You don’t think that there are negative consequences now for those “NOT” supporting unions if they don’t win the election?
As former President of an American Federation of Government
Employees Local, our contract provided that we represent
all non management employees, regardless of union affiliation. It was our posture that we provide the best
advocacy and representation possible under the circumstance. As a result of our advocacy, most employees
chose to join. Even with management, we negeotiated
from the position that every interest needs a stake in the process. First and foremost employers and employees need to understand why they are there in the first place…to help the business succeed, not to destroy it by making unreasonable demands. Conversely, businesses as they succeed need to share the rewards with all contributors.