Card Check Rears Its Ugly Head in California

I guess that headline shows my bias. Anyway, turns out that the Golden State (doesn't glitter too much anymore, though) legislature will soon send a bill to Ahnold's desk that would allow agricultural workers to form unions by card check.

Card check is the now-infamous method proposed in the federal Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that allows organizers to form unions by collecting signatures from 50 percent-plus-one of a firm's employees. The EFCA would enshrine the method nationwide, but that bill is locked in a pitched battle in the Senate.

New Jersey has a card check law, but it applies only to businesses that have no interstate commerce connections, such as race tracks, so its impact is limited. Similarly, the California law slips through the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by confining itself to in-state agriculture (though I'm sure the food is sold in other states--so a questionable bill at best).

The Governator has three times vetoed similar measures, and hopefully he will this time too.

In the meantime, catch a load of this surreal debate:

"How many summers do we have to go through of heat-related deaths? How many farm-related accidents...before we recognize that unions are most important for people who are the most vulnerable?" said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said his bill would prevent farm owners and labor contractors from intimidating workers before secret-ballot elections. But farm and business groups say the legislation could let the United Farm Workers pressure employees into signing the union cards.

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, questioned whether workers are any safer with union representation.

"I was unaware of the fact that under union contracts we have less heat-related deaths. Do you have statistics to back that up?" Denham said.

Steinberg did not produce statistics but said he was unaware of any unionized farmworkers dying from a heat-related ailment.

Hostage-Taking Trumps Card Check Anyday

As is their wont, the French reject American culture while embracing and perfecting it, in their own inimitable way.

Take the example of unionization. France is widely unionized. You can hardly visit there without the garbage collectors or air traffic controllers or railway operators going on strike for this or that. They all work for publicly operated entities, which are in turn union strangled, oops, I mean controlled. Anyway, a one- or two-day strike makes for a nice little holiday, n'est-ce pas?

Here in the United States, we argue over card check and whether that should be allowed as the preferred option for union organizing.

In France, they don't argue--they take hostages.

The latest example comes from the Molex Inc. plant in Villemur-sur-Tam. Owners are threatening to close the plant and have been negotiating with the union, but the union smells a rat, sensing that Molex wants to shift operations to China.

Hence the logical thing to do is take two executives hostage until the company agrees to leave the equipment and workers all in place.

So far, this sounds like a Gallic version of the Republic Windows and Doors stand-off in Chicago of late last year. There, employees staged a sit-down until they got their severance packages.

In France, we'll just have to wait to see what happens.

Hostages are, however, treated civilly during these stand-offs. Last month, an executive held hostage at 3M was even treated to moules et frites (mussels and fries, a traditional dish) as a snack.

Like I said before, why check cards when you can just hold some hostages until you get what you want?

"Sign here to recognize our union, or we'll keep you hostage until you do" works faster than gathering all those signatures.

Employment Increases in D.C.-- and North Dakota?

One can easily understand how employment continues to rise in Washington, D.C., even as every other state in the union continues to stay even (three states) or lose workers to unemployment (the rest save one), but the Peace Garden State (aka Flickertail State and Roughrider State)?

Yup, North Dakota has evidently managed to live both frugally and well to survive and prosper in our current economic turmoil. Hats off to you, North Dakotans. (But if you're seeking work, your best bet still is Obamaland, which is on a hiring binge--or orgy--following the trillions of dollars in conjured money flooding the place.)

But do you know which state has the highest unemployment (hint: it ain't California)?

Go to this interactive unemployment map and find the answer.

GM Out of Luck in a Canadian Bankruptcy

If (and it should) General Motors ends up in bankruptcy court in the U.S., it can bust the union contracts that have a stranglehold over it, but in Canada, GM faces a stiffer challenge.

Canadian bankruptcy law is federally written, but the constitution reserves civil rights and property settlements to the provinces in bankruptcy proceedings. These areas include employment, so GM would have to present its case for altering its Canadian union contracts to a provincial (maybe several provincial) Labour Board(s). Fat chance of victory, eh?

One final caveat: If you buy a unionized company in Canada, you inherit the union contract, for better or worse, till death do you part.

Canada--a good place to work, a bad place to employ.

The Burger King Complex and Health Care

This comment by an emergency room physician is so juicy and right on that I just have to reprint it here from another blog--sorry about that, blogger, but I did give you a backlink:

Your reader's response to Megan got a lot closer to the core of the problem with healthcare costs. I am a physician in an emergency room in New York City, and every day I see tons of cash needlessly flying out the door due to "the Burger King factor." American patients often come to the ER with very minor complaints - back pain for which they have not even tried tylenol, nasal congestion for two days, itchy mosquito bites, and so forth. All of them expect something from you, quickly, for their trouble - and it must meet their preconceptions or they will accuse you of ripping them off.

Many of them become virtually incandescent with anger if they aren't given some kind of medical test that they (or one of their friends) thinks is a good idea, but they don't really need. They insult you, they threaten you, they loudly announce that they're going to call their lawyer or the hospital administrator, etc. Sometimes we stand up to them, and sometimes we're too exhausted to fight. Sometimes it's just easier to get the x-ray on the patient with back pain rather than take the abuse and argue with them for 40 minutes and then have them send an angry letter to the review board. Others are simply beyond the pale and can't put anyone else ahead of themselves. Some are incensed that I have to see a critically ill patient before I see them, because "I got here first." People will literally interrupt cpr to scream that they want a sandwich or something to eat NOW. People want a blood test, a cat scan, an EKG, anything in exchange for their time. People will quote TV shows as medical authorities. All of us have our favorite 'placebo' methods to try and gratify these patients, from ultrasounding their skulls (safe, dramatic, shows nothing but costs nothing) to pointing an ultraviolet flashlight into their maalox before they drink it. It's our version of wearing a wooden mask and shaking a rattle - we hate it, and patients love it.

The amazing thing is that when needless tests come back negative, the patient is completely satisfied. There is never a sense of regret, or how much money they just wasted, but rather one of accomplishment, even if they still have the same problem they walked in with.

Ultimately, the American sense of entitlement, so long appeased and encouraged by our commercial culture, is what is poisoning the healthcare system. Doctors have played into it and are just as guilty for caving in when they know better, or billing for procedures a patient doesn't really need. We have played along and made medical glitz into the standard of care, feeding and feeding off of a narcissism that cannot be satisfied. It is a uniquely American problem, which is why the solutions that other nations have reached will not work as well for us.

H.R. 1355 Replicates EFCA Without Card Check

Introduced in the House of Representatives on March 5, the National Labor Relations Modernization Act (H.R. 1355) is like EFCA's little sister.

The main difference is that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) allows for instant unionization when a majority of employees sign a card--the infamous card check provision. What the Modernization Act calls for instead are elections within 30 days of 30 percent of the employees' having signed cards (can't get rid of those cards, huh?), which vastly speeds up the system now in place.

The House bill, introduced by Pennsylvania's Representative Joe Sestak, like EFCA mandates mediation on contract negotiations (if the union wins the election), but only after 120 days, not 90, and it then allows another 120 days to reach agreement on a contract, not the 30 under EFCA. Then if there is still no agreement, an arbitrator can dictate a contract that would prevail for 18 months, which is six months shorter than EFCA's provision.

Like EFCA, the Modernization Act stiffens penalties on employers for interfering in the election process or retaliating against employee organizers and advocates. It also gives the union equal access to employees prior to the election so the employees cannot be "brainwashed" by their employers.

The bill looks to stand little chance. It's languishing in the House Education and Labor Committee with no co-sponsors, but something like this may eventually see the light of law if Senators keep backing off EFCA.

Our Future Clearly Visible Across the Pond

I'm not going to go into much detail; instead, I'll provide some quotations and hotlinks.

The situation: Labour Party-governed Great Britain, which isn't even actually a part of the European Union, only the European Common Market, is now abiding by EU labor laws in providing unemployment benefits for foreign nationals working the the country who get laid off. This has, as you can imagine, provoked quite a bit of criticism by the native born, who complain that a) first we print money to bail out the banks and b) now we get taxed to support people who don't even want to be citizens. I paraphrase, but it's something along those understandable lines.

Here's the blog posting (it is partisan since it belongs to the opposition British National Party) called "The Madness Continues."

And here's a fairly typical, though somewhat more restrained and sardonic, comment:

Funny that, because in the last recession I was told I was only entitled to the most basic support (about £29 per week) and nothing else because I had been working as 'self-employed'. Sure, I had paid my tax and National Insurance contributions for 9 years...but according to the the person I spoke to 'I had caused myself to be unemployed' by being self-employed in the first place and running out of work...it was my own fault! (and I'm sure nothing has changed)...so in other words, who's fault is it when you leave your own country and end up out of work in Britain? Of course...silly me...it's our fault...so we should cough up as usual...right??

I posted a comment too, saying in effect: "Thanks for previewing our future. We'll be there with you shortly. And bankrupt too."

Would Obama really makes us part of the European Union? Don't count it out, but what you can count on is that he will emulate EU labor policies as closely as possible, even "improve" on them.

People should listen more closely during our election campaigns. You get what you vote for.