George McGovern will have his reveeeennnnnggggeeeee!
I've had a couple folks ask me why George McGovern is suddenly emerging as an opponent of the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act and so I've been meaning to write a post on the way Organized Labor screwed him over in 1972, but then I forgot and now Matt Yglesias wrote it and so you should all just read him. Also, in future posts, my sentences will be shorter. Of course, the fact that McGovern hates Labor doesn't necessarily invalidate his argument that allowing workers to sign cards calling for a union would deny them of the right to a free and fair election and open them to the possibility of union intimidation. It's a fair concern. But not a relevant one. People seem to get very confused by the word "election" in this context, presuming a workplace election similar to a student body government election, or a Senate election. It's not. About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines. (These numbers, and many more, in this pdf report.) The best popular representation I've ever seen of this came in the sitcom The Office, when the warehouse workers tried to organize. Jan, the corporate supervisor, walked into the room, and said:"I am told that there has been some interest in forming a union and that Michael supported it. Obviously, he is not a friend of yours because he didn't tell you the facts; so let me. If there is even a whiff of unionizing in this branch, I can guarantee you that the branch will be shut down like that. They unionized in Pittsfield, and we all know what happened in Pittsfield. It will cost each of you a fortune in legal fees and union dues and that will be nothing compared to the cost of losing your jobs, so I would think long and hard before sacrificing your savings and your future just to send a message."That's how these "elections" go. That's what voter intimidation looks like -- intimidation by people with real power over you, not college-age union organizers who come to your house and beg you to take their literature. I think the worst example of union intimidation I ever heard was the allegation of a slashed tire. An $80 loss, and a crime. Meanwhile, employers simply fire workers. Which scares you more?All the concern over the possible implications of EFCA would be fair enough if these same folks evinced even an ounce of anxiety over the reality that workers are being threatened, intimidated, and even fired if they dare try and organize. There are a lot of halfway points between card check elections and the current system -- fining employers $6,000,000 for every neutrality violation, say -- but the space we're currently occupying is brutal, and makes an utter mockery of the idea of elections. Hearing the status quo defended as free and fair is like imagining a presidential election where you can vote however you'd like, but anyone who votes against the incumbent party is informed they will lose all access to Social Security, Medicare, and the protection of their local police and fire departments. Also, they'll be audited. But nevertheless: Folks can vote however they want.(And yes, this post is ripping off this old post. Work smarter, not harder!)
