Employee_Free_Choice_Act

[wayiwalk]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

As a business owner of 4 full time and 40 part time employees - I'll weigh in with my bretheren above who are owners of much larger ventures.

I go out of my way and bend over backwards to make my employees happy. I'm not stupid - I know that they are essential to my success.

However, I also know that I pay them what I choose to pay them based on the business realities that I am forced to manage as an owner.

Each year, I pay out bonuses to my full time employees. If the year is good - I can be more generous. If things are bad, I will be less generous. Their wages are set by my paying them the most I can pay them without risking losing them to a competitor.

On the other hand, if their wages driven by others without the same vested interest in my company's survival, perhaps they may push my companies finances where I can't make payroll one week. Who knows? But someone without an intimate, day to day knowledge of my business certainly wouldn't, and I think the history of failed industries in this country point support that.

And before anyone comments - I've been in business for 5 years, started paying out bonuses to my full time employees 3 years ago, and actually paid myself from the business for the first time last year.

To me, the worst aspect of greater unionization is the history of government supporting unions - think of it this way, there's no shortage of politicians that make their way by supporting efforts to unionize Wal-Mart (where I plan to shop later tonight), and all i can think is - do we really need more Washington influence in the way that a successful american business is run?

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I think the stint of the argument, from Marx to Chomsky, is that if, for example, the capitalist owner is not really involved day-to-day and is acting more as an extractive rentier owner, then the owner is not contributing value and a significant amount of the excess profit should be allocated to the day-to-day generators of the profits - i.e., the workers. This greater allocation of profits to the workers allows them to put the money back into the economy by purchasing goods.

If it is desired that wealth should be distributed more evenly within society (open to debate) an interesting question is whether bottom-up type redistribution (such as unions) or top-down type redistribution (such as progressive taxation) is a better mechanism.

Nice theory, but it's not up to you. It's his business. Should your ideals trump his property rights (ownership of the business) and our founding principles of personal freedom? Why should the business owner be told how to manage his business? It's his business!

For a reverse example, I hate what George Soros chooses to do with his wealth, but I'm not in favor of enacting laws to restrict his personal rights, restrain his freedom of speech, or violate his property rights just so I can force my opinions on him. Like Soros, the hypothetical business owner in question has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his business and his wealth. We shouldn't try to force him to ascribe to the philosophy of Marx or to the will of a Union. Our Constitution, our Nation, our American spirit should allow him to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

[Blackhawk]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

The card check strategy is a technique unions use to organize and so is the corporate campaign. Both are equally viscious on the employer. "Death by a thousand cuts!"

EFCA appears to be political favor. The detail on EFCA is marginal. The ultimate impact of the impact on the employer could be determined by a third party arbitrator. Why? Because the unions want an unfair advantage to boost their membership?

I don't get it.

[Munger]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Nice theory, but it's not up to you. It's his business. Should your ideals trump his property rights (ownership of the business) and our founding principles of personal freedom? Why should the business owner be told how to manage his business? It's his business!

That the government enforces his property rights such that he may benefit from wage slavery is but one particular set of ideals. I am not trying to advocate any particular set of ideals, but I am interested in debate. I don't think appealing to some vague notion of founding principles cuts the mustard in that regard.

To flip your question of "why should the business owner be told how to manage his business": why should the workers be told how they are allowed to organize? It is not sacred that a business owner should be able to maximize profits from the work of others.

For a reverse example, I hate what George Soros chooses to do with his wealth, but I'm not in favor of enacting laws to restrict his personal rights, restrain his freedom of speech, or violate his property rights just so I can force my opinions on him. Like Soros, the hypothetical business owner in question has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his business and his wealth. We shouldn't try to force him to ascribe to the philosophy of Marx or to the will of a Union. Our Constitution, our Nation, our American spirit should allow him to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

Do you favor laws restricting the personal rights of unions or union members? The hypothetical business owner has not succeeded in a vacuum; he owes his success to the workers from whose work he has profited. Business owners understandably jealously guard this situation.

Personally, I think the business owner needs a chance to become wealthy lest the motive to create a successful business vanish. Capital tends to aggregate capital, however, and I wonder where mitigating the concentration of capital might become beneficial.

[DToM67]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Nice theory, but it's not up to you. It's his business. Should your ideals trump his property rights (ownership of the business) and our founding principles of personal freedom? Why should the business owner be told how to manage his business? It's his business!

For a reverse example, I hate what George Soros chooses to do with his wealth, but I'm not in favor of enacting laws to restrict his personal rights, restrain his freedom of speech, or violate his property rights just so I can force my opinions on him. Like Soros, the hypothetical business owner in question has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his business and his wealth. We shouldn't try to force him to ascribe to the philosophy of Marx or to the will of a Union. Our Constitution, our Nation, our American spirit should allow him to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

Soros "earned the right". Says who? So Soros could squash the both with his checkbook. What's it got to do with earning? His ilk have been politically connected & properly dirtied... they buy thier "right" via back-door deals and worse... Others are born into weath & certainly haven't earned squat. You've merely exposed the perverted standard by which some 'special' people in society are held up & admired. Bah!

As a business owner myself (since '95), and a former union member I've got a mixed perspective. My own union did some good work, but was ultimately like any other self perpetuating 'entity' - like govt., police, military, etc... all must have a reason to exist & grow... Grow or die. Causes are needed & invented to grow the membership.... eventually the union loses track of why it was arrived at, and (at least in the case of one of my family members) sells out its own, for concessions from management - in order to maintain influence & power.

All the same, I wouldn't want to go back to pre-union extortion era either. Temporary worker VISA's, off-shoring jobs are union busting, plain & simple.

This disconnect... that a business is allowed to operate IN the United States, but refuses to be held accountable for its local human impact is ridiculous! ... like kiddies not wanting to recognizing consequences of their actions.

Wal-mart is the perfect example:
Someone said they were going to shop @ Wal-mart. Irrespective of the pennies you save @ Wal-mart do you realize that you are PAYING for Wal-mart to exist via your taxes? Check out the stats on emergency room visits. Check out how many folks without insurance bring themselves & their kids to the emerg for basic medical attention - (because the wage Wal-mart will pay is so utterly un-livable). And THIS is just the cost of medical attention. What are the stats re: impact on local economy & businesses? This isn't a successful business model its a PARASITE on all of us. It just slides by.

People like to talk about competition & how the American worker is lazy, how he wants too much for his time... The American worker isn't lazy, and he isn't greedy. The American system is broken! The American worker needs a living wage!

Both corporations & unions got politically connected a LONG time ago. They game the system to meet their own goals. The American worker & small-medium business owners are the losers.

[Mango]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

As I understand it the act gives the employees the right to decide if they'll have a card check process or a secret ballot. Previously that decision was left to the employer.

The secret ballot process is longer and gives the employer a chance to harass/fire employees.

That we once had nearly 35% union membership, and that those days of union pride and strong labor alliances happened to coincide with the 1950s—the most prosperous, vigorous and confident period in our history—shouldn’t be lost on anyone.

Today, in stark contrast (and with union membership hovering at just above 12%), we’ve lost our manufacturing sector, become victims to an out-of-control health care system, buried ourselves in an avalanche—trillions of dollars—of debt, and, in a cruel reversal of the economic promise of the post-war 1950s, managed to eviscerate the middle-class.
http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray03112009.html

And:

Over the years employers found out that they could just ignore the Wagner Act and fire pro-union workers right before so-called secret ballot elections; they found out there was no real limit on what they could use as threat...

The Economic Policy Institute reports that since 1972, the median hourly wage for men has remained basically flat, and has actually declined for the bottom fifth of workers...What is more astonishing is that in this very same period, when workers were losing financial ground, their productivity--their output per hour--nearly doubled. They were doing twice as much work for the same wage or less.

--Thomas Geoghegan (labor lawyer) Harpers, April 2009

A mini-industry in union-busting consultants has grown up in the past generation. An individual from one of those firms 'flipped' and went public against his own industry. You can see a series on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qajBfEdzoE

Some of the most progressive labor reforms were passed in the depths of the Depression against the same sort of oppositional cries I'm seeing on this thread.

Let's give the workers a break.

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

- (because the wage Wal-mart will pay is so utterly un-livable).

This is the one argument that always irks me the most. If the wage is so "unlivable" then don't take the job. Surprisingly, plenty of people do.

That wage is the going rate in the U.S. for a job at Wal-Mart and the skill set that said job requires. If the rate is too low, Wal-Mart will not receive enough applications and will thus raise the rate. If the rate is acceptable (to the labor market, not to your personal standards of too high or too low) then Wal-Mart will have plenty of willing workers at that rate.

Also, I don't know this for a fact, but as Wal-Mart has expanded into China, Mexico, and elswhere, I assume that they can pay a lower rate than they do in the U.S. for these same positions, and still get plenty of applicants and willing workers. A "livable" wage is open to opinion. A wage that the market will accept is not an opinion, it is established by the free-market. A wage that a company can pay and still, A] attract sufficient talent, and B] remain competitive in the global marketplace is also set by the free market.

Business owners are not evil-doers setting unreasonably low wages and forcing people to take those jobs. The market sets the wages.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

To further address Wal-mart and liveable wages - there are plenty of workers in the the workforce who are not looking for full-time work. My business primarily employs individuals who are looking for part time work while their kids are in school, when they have the free time.

And while I feel I pay my employees a competitive wage - I don't live under the belief that it alone would be enough money for someone to live on or support a family.

Similarly, my business is there to provide me with the extra income to put my kids through college while I struggle to live in a high-cost state in the US. I don't live under the misconception that it can provide me with all of my income needs....

[flintlock]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Well it may not pass after all.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[flintlock]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Have run both Union and Non Union Jobs. Typically the union jobs run slower and are less productive. The union jobs give a disproportionate amount of money to the senior staff compared to the jr. staff that does the heavy lifting. The misallocation of labor resources costs 30% more on average to complete a job then a non union job. When running a non union job workers are actually are more productive. Pay is distributed more evenly based upon skill and productivity. Unions tend to bring the labor force to the least common denominator as opposed to the highest level of productivity. A poster said that the highest union membership was in the 1950's and that was the most productive age. One reason for that was the legacy costs to the business were not realized and the rules were not tacked on that made labor unproductive. After 59 years of trying to prove their worth labor unions have come up with the most unproductive work rules. Kind of like congress if they don't pass any laws then what are they really doing so we get laws that actually damage the country. Do you really need a union to tell you that you can only lay 10 feet of pipe per person per hour. Do we really need union rules that say that you need two people to pull a wire that only one person could pull and those people will need to take twice the time to do it then one person. Do we really need unions to mandate the slowest possible production time per task with the most costly manpower. Do you really need to pay 1 foreman at $90/hr, 5 journeymen at $70 per hour and 2 apprentices at $40 per hour when the job only requires the skill of 5 apprentices. Do you really need the layers and layers of bureaucracy on both the managment and labor side not to mention the lawyers and consultants you must pay to run a union shop. I do not begrudge labor anything. I have a very high respect for the people who I have had the pleasure to work with both union and non union. They are decent hard working people. But I think unions are not constructive to the system anymore. The government regulates everything from discrimination to job saftey, the states can enact prevailling wage laws. The government establishes the minimum wage. If you want to quote Marx and Lenin fine but lets name one game changing technology in the past 60 years that came out of a Socialist/Communist country. The best way a worker can improve his earnings is not to be represented by a union but to be more productive. Learn a valuable skill and keep improving that skill. Unions have progressivley lost power not due to union busting but due to their lack of bringing any benefit to the table in a constructive manner for labor or management. They only remain because of the political influence they can assert by rallying the votes. America works not because of the 11% unionized workforce it works because of the 89% of the workforce trying to be more productive/creative and resourceful to better themselves directly and knowing that if they are successful they will bear the fruits of their own labor in the form of personal wealth creation. American society is based upon limitless carrots out their for people to chase as opposed to sticks of regulation forcing them down to the lowest level.

Thank you!

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Well it may not pass after all.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

So that's why the market rallied 500 yesterday!

[vanvaley1]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

As a business owner and employer of about 150, I take serious offense at your remarks. Business owners do not "get rich" by sticking it to the poor and middle class!!! That's an ignorant statement. Business owners "get rich" by creating successful businesses, and a key ingredient in that success is good, contributing employees. Most business owners were once the poor and middle class denizens themselves. They took a chance, toiled, sacrificed, and the minority that were successful are not now suddenly the rich, exploiting, piss-on-human beings, scumbags that you make them out to be.

If you think your employer is screwing you, you are free to go work somewhere else. If you think a bad employer is going to suddenly become a great employer just because you and your coworkers join a union, you are living in a dream world. A bad employer will only get worse if you bring in a union. Ironically, a good employer will also become a worse work environment if you bring in a union. My advice is to find a better employer than your current one, because they have given you a tainted, false impression of most businesses, business owners, and work environments. Better yet, go start your own business and employ as many people as you possibly can. That will open your horizons, not to mention your eyes.

Well, if things become intolerable you can always sell your business...at a profit...to the union.

[bpr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Great discussion here. Very good points from both sides.

Unions have been steadily neutered since Reagan's pilots. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that their systematic breakdown has caused them to double down on unseemly tactics, which were already prevalent at the time.

The argument, "go work for someone else, then," doesn't resonate with me due to the large scale consolidation that has happened over the last thirty years. Used to be you could go down the street and find a different factory to work for that would abuse you in a different way, or maybe a little less, perhaps not at all. I'm sure the business owners on this forum fall into the non-abusive category, but I'm also sure that there are many out there that fall into the abusive category, having worked for some.

Bottom line for me is, it shouldn't be up to the employer in any way whether the employees unionize. And he who counts the votes (or administers the election) is always the winner.

That last point may be the problem, in point of fact, since this kind of law could give unprecedented power to the NLRB. But, to my mind, unprecedented power has been given to private entities and employers over the last thirty years. Time for the pendulum to swing.

Let's just keep it clean, kids. It's easy to discount your credibility when using terms like scumbags.

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Well, if things become intolerable you can always sell your business...at a profit...to the union.

vanvaley1,

Although making what I would categorize as a flippant, dismissive comment, you have (likely unknowingly) hit the crux of a very important aspect of this discussion. Successful businesses, especially manufacturing businesses, are the pillars and drivers of our economy. In my opinion, they are the golden goose. Unions and government are the parasites that attack the golden goose, making it sicker and sicker through taxes, regulations, requirements, mandates, and on & on ad nauseum. Due to the resiliency, ability, intelligence, and drive of many good managers, entrepreneurs, and business owners, many businesses survive and forge ahead IN SPITE OF these parasites, not because of them. Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" provides a terrific fictional account of just this producer/parasite relationship and is a favorite read, often an inspiration, for many entrepreneurs. Unions and government can push and push, and for a while evrything seems fine, but eventually the best and brightest producers will sell their businesses and a slow, steady decline toward mediocrity and economic/societal failure will occur. But hey, that's just my biased opinion. And what should I care, I'll be on a beach in Tahiti sipping mai tais by then watching from afar to see what happens when only parasites are left.

[Rantly McTirade]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Or 'parasite'.(in lieu of 'scumbag')

But parasites need a toxic environment to thrive, and businesses that have to deal with unions generally have only themselves to blame, whether at present or in the past, for being toxic. The most toxic environments generally are in medium to large corporations, where the toxicity is due to corporate bureaucrats, aka 'managers', and not so
much in smaller firms still lead by entrepreneurs; the exceptions to that, though, can be the most hellish of all.

Atlas Shrugged is a great and entertaining piece of fiction, just like War of the Worlds or ET. It's about as relevant to operating in the real world as those other two as well. Any adult(over 30, say) that views it as a real life guide exhibits significant narcissism and possibly delusion. I sure as hell wouldn't provide financing or investment to a firm with such leadership.