Diary Of A Mad Voter: Jessica Peck Corry
Unions Singing Yesterday’s Song
By Jessica Peck Corry, 9-06-07
Joining a union in 2007 is like buying a Britney Spears CD. You do it because it makes you nostalgic for those good old days before reality set in.
In contemporary American life, unions are largely irrelevant—that is, everywhere except for politics. Union bosses regularly abuse workers to achieve their political objectives—and in states like Colorado, they get away with it.
In 2006, the nation’s largest union, the Service Employees International Union, funneled nearly $1 million from the compulsory dues of their members to fund small donor committees designed to elect Democrats running for everything from county treasurer to governor. And the SEIU was successful.
Utilizing a loophole in Colorado campaign finance law, they were able to forcibly use dues money of union members from across the country for the cause—all without the consent or disclosure of individual workers. How truly unfair to the janitor in Florida that he could be forced to give money to his union, only to see this money translated into campaign contributions supporting out-of-state causes or candidates he doesn’t believe in.
Last week, the Federal Election Commission agreed that union tactics are out of control, making the decision to fine a union-funded campaign committee $750,000 for illegally diverting more than $100 million in forced dues and other contributions to federal candidates.
Unfortunately, while the committee, Americans Coming Together (which received $26 million from SEIU in 2004 alone) has now been disbanded, its unwilling contributors won’t receive a penny in compensation for having their hard earned money misused.
When voters across the nation began enacting a wave of so-called campaign finance reform during the last decade, they wanted transparency in our system. If union participation proves anything, however, it’s that the system has only become more captive to the secrecy of anonymous contributors.
Union membership has plummeted nationally over the last 50 years, the result of a changing economy—one that was once industrial, briefly becoming the “office” economy, and today, at least for the moment, is tied primarily to a service economy and technology. While the U.S. population has nearly doubled since 1960, we have 700,000 less unionized workers than we did four decades ago.
In Colorado, the unionized workforce is extremely small—less than 10 percent of the total workforce—a statistic representative of a fact that most employers here aren’t massive manufacturing or retail giants, but rather small mom-and-pop shops.
Beyond very vocal casino workers in Las Vegas, most people in the West are also saying no to union membership for a very simple reason. They don’t feel the need. Why be forced into group salary negotiations, known by the flowery phrase “collective bargaining,” when you can better advocate a pay raise for yourself? If the guy down the hall isn’t working as hard as you, why should he get the same benefits?
While more and more workers are opting to fend for themselves—when the law allows—as it only sometimes does in Colorado, union bosses are fighting back with the aid of Democrats in power, including Gov. Bill Ritter, who has opened the door to unions seeking to raise the percentage of public employees belonging to unions.
In the end, it’s a losing cause. Our workforce is becoming more specialized, more sophisticated, and our economy simply cannot—and will not—maintain jobs that hand out benefits and salaries based on group bullying and not individual merit.
The truth is clear that states rejecting forced unionism, commonly known as “Right to Work” states, attract better employers and more diversified industries. It’s a win-win for both workers and business owners.
As Democrats prepare for their party’s convention in Denver next summer, they couldn’t pander any harder to the far-left elements of the organized labor movement. They’re not likely to appear in public with Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the son of a man whose mysterious and infamous disappearance in 1975 is often tied to his tough-talking union ways.
Democrats are, however, likely to heed Hoffa’s extreme message that workers should be forced to join unions or pay representation dues in the absence of membership.
The younger Hoffa was referred to in a 1997 National Review article as “the Pillsbury Doughboy of the union movement” for being “not particularly sharp” and for being “more interested in building a muscular union than in forming grand left-wing alliances.” In other words, he’s a relic of the past.
In 2005, Hoffa announced that the Teamsters were ending their affiliation with the AFL-CIO in an effort to help “stem the losses that we have endured over the past decade.” While the losses continue, the political contributions only continue to add up.
Money in politics has a way of talking. Even outdated messages like those still perpetuated by Hoffa have a way of being heard when they directly result in campaign contributions.
There was a time when unions served a societal good. They fought against horrible working conditions and gave a voice to the voiceless. Today, however, they serve special interests largely out of touch with the American workforce—small business employees and employers like those in my family.
Just like we all loved Britney, Americans have an ongoing affinity for unions. Both are largely out of touch with life in the 21st century, however, and it’s time to let them go. As much as Britney might today dream of a sold-out concert, she simply can’t force people to buy tickets. Hoffa and his union buddies should have to play by the same rules. Forced unionism has got to go.
Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry’s weekly blogs are part of a new feature on NewWest.Net/Politics called “Diary of a Mad Voter,” a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. Check back this week at www.newwest.net/madvoter.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Whew! Smelly.
What, pray tell, do you think the union memebers' dues are for? Lord knows the unions need all the political help they can get. Or to put it another way, don't churches, corporations, nonprofits and other groups taking members' dues use them in political campaigns. Of course they do. So you have selectively painted unions as being naughty for doing the same.
Tell me, would you be happy if unions declared themselves organized religion so they could avoid paying taxes and use members' money to gain political power as the radical Christians have been doing? Hey, not a bad idea.
I have yet to meet a group of people that are nearly as lazy and childish. They drag ass as slow as they can to extend their hours. I have seen a supervisor ask a UAW worker for something only to be told "Fuck Off". I have seen another worker take a supervisor's ack of cigarettes and fill it with the bottle of water sitting next to it. I had a Nextel radio thrown in the toilet because a worker thought a supervisor had left it sitting out.
I have seen people stumble into work so drunk they could barely stand, and get to work as the union rep said the smell was mouthwash and couldn't be proved otherwise. Drug testing was performed randomly, but the person being tested had to be notified 30 days in advance. Breathalizers were not allowed as that is an "invasion of privacy". Same with cameras anywhere inside the building. An entire Northstar System Cadillac engine disappeared from a loading dock with no suspects or evidence of who did it as cameras are not allowed in the loading dock areas.
The personnel director was threatened and the guy that threatened her received paid leave for the 9 months until he retired for stress. A guy punched a hole in the wall and threatened his supervisor and received 30 days paid for stress relief.
The people performing "put away" (shelving items that have come in) have an unofficial (as GM can no longer hold them to standards) expected rate of 35 parts per hour per person. While working OT they averaged 5 on a Saturday and whined like babies when the OT was no longer offered. When a new minimum standard was released for the pickers (pull orders to ship out) 4 people directly complained to me (and I had no authority with GM) that they have standards now. Oh no!
To top it all of the lowest paid UAW worker at the facility was at $28.09 per hour plus COL adjustment. No copay at the Dr. (you should've heard the bitching when they were informed they would have a $10 copay), the entire last week of the year at TRIPLE time (it is a holiday week so the manufacturing can retool - and teh parts guys work it) as well as voting day as a paid holiday, opening day of hunting season in Michigan as a paid holiday, and numerous others.
Unions have long outlived their value to society in most fields now and serve only to hurt consumers with higher prices for lower quality goods and services (teachers, government workers).
I used to be an officer in our local bargaining unit (Secretary, Vice President & President) and I've sat at the bargaining table. Later, I led an effort to decertify the union that failed by one vote. My experience is that union tactics include threats, intimidation, exclusion, dishonesty, and "negotiation" for the betterment of a few, not a whole. I'd like to share more of my thoughts with you and learn more about a topic that we clearly share the same opinion about.
I. "Our workforce is becoming more specialized, more sophisticated, and our economy simply cannot—and will not—maintain jobs that hand out benefits and salaries based on group bullying and not individual merit."
Ms. Cory is too simplistic on this point. Collective bargaining implies equal pay for equal work, which she rejects presumably for individual merit. The major problems you find everywhere in practice are two related impacts:
#1- If there isn't a uniform wage floor, then employees have no predictable way to plan for consumption of durable goods and long-term services which drive a mature economy.
Collective insecurity is equated with competition in her implicit model of labor. Shifting risk to individuals from companies has aggregate impacts that can undermine consumption. Is the problem with collective bargaining or the inability to reward or punish productivity? This is apples vs. oranges in practice.
#2- "Merit pay" implies that an employer has an objective standard for individual success or failure relative to a company goal. This can be done in a manufacturing economy, but is not so easy or true in a service economy (aka "knowledge economy"). Such efforts are usually more intimately collaborative and how contributions are measured subjective.
In the real world, we often have the "suck up to the boss" phenomenon who presents the image of productivity to their supervisor while in reality accomplishing little. So "merit" in this case presumes managerial expertise to identify and reward individual (vs. collective) productivity. Well.... good luck with that one. What it really means is that an individual's success or failure depends on whether their boss is competent to identify this. Inability to do so means high employee turn-over and loss of the employee knowledge-base which is the kiss of death in any service industry beyond call centers.
II. "The truth is clear that states rejecting forced unionism, commonly known as “Right to Work” states, attract better employers and more diversified industries. It’s a win-win for both workers and business owners."
Hhhmmm.... An interesting assertion, but only half-true in reality. The "right-to-work" states in the American South and Midwest have generally drawn those type of businesses related to manufacturing that depend on cheap labor and utilize little of the knowledge workers. This is more mixed in the Southwest and Intermountain/Rocky Mtn states. Oddly... the strongest economies are found is in the Pacific Northwest and West Coast where the knowledge economy is most advanced. Also parts of the Northeast. Isn't it interesting that the most influential businesses of the last 30 years started in non "right-to-work" states?
In sum, she is correct about the economic shift away from a heavy industrial to service economy. That is historical fact at this point. However, the conclusions she draws are way to simplisitic and do not reflect the reality of a changing economy. Go read two good books by the economist Lester Thurow on globalization:
- The Future of Capitalism: How Today's Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow's World. [It is scary 10 years on how true some of his predictions are]
- Fortune Favors the Bold: What We Must Do to Build a New and Lasting Global Prosperity. [Not as useful as the first, but excellent for its analysis relating a knowledge economy to globalization]
To borrow from the religous sorts: God save us from simplistic notions of complex problems.