Labor's undemocratic agenda

Big Labor's Comeback

Excerpt:

.... rewriting federal law to promote union organizing is now near the top of the Democratic agenda. The main vehicle is "card check" legislation, which would eliminate the requirement for secret ballots in union elections. Unable to organize workers when employees can vote in privacy, unions want to expose those votes to peer pressure, and inevitably to public intimidation. This would arguably be the biggest change to federal labor law since the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Democratic House passed card check last year, and Mr. Obama has pledged his support. With a few more Senators, it might pass.

Card check is merely the start. Next on the agenda is a campaign to repeal "right to work" laws in the 22 U.S. states that have them. Right to work laws allow employees to decide for themselves whether to join or financially support a union. Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior told a union event in Denver on Monday that limiting right to work laws is essential both to lifting union membership and promoting more Democratic political victories. He pointed out that John Kerry didn't win a single right to work state in 2004, while Al Gore won only one -- Iowa -- and only by a few thousand votes in 2000.

This point is crucial to understanding labor's new Democratic clout. States with more union households tend to be more Democratic. And groups like the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO will pour hundreds of millions of dollars, and endless man hours, into getting Democrats elected this year. Those resources have simply overwhelmed the 1990s New Democrat movement that tried to tug the party toward freer trade and public-sector reform.

The question for Americans more broadly is whether a return to widespread unionization is really the way to raise middle-class incomes. The case for card check is that, amid global competition, the balance of organizing power has shifted to business. Giving unions more power will redress this imbalance and let workers grab a higher share of corporate profits.

But this claim is highly suspect, given the record in autos, steel and the rest of unionized American manufacturing. The only sector of the U.S. auto industry that is prospering is the part not organized by the United Auto Workers. Likewise, Europe, with its high jobless rates and slow growth, argues against unionization as a way to lift middle-class incomes. To the extent a country like Germany has modestly reversed some of this, it has been the result of recent labor-law reforms and labor concessions.

As for the U.S., the states with right to work laws have performed better economically for workers of all types. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has shown that right to work states over the past 30 years have lower unemployment, higher rates of job creation, and faster growth in GDP and per-capita personal income than states with compulsory union membership. Colorado is hoping to get in on this success, with a high-profile ballot initiative this fall that would make it a right to work state.

We have long believed that if workers want to form a union, they have every right to do so. And businesses that get a union often deserve what they get. What Americans need to know this November is that the Democratic Party wants to make it that much more difficult for them not to join a union.

Comment: I don't know what's so hard about these concepts: If I vote in a union election, my vote should be private. And if I don't want to be in a union, I shouldn't be forced to! By the way (and this is coming from a guy with 2 Chevy's! This same guy has only owned 1 foreign car ... a VW bug while I was in college!) - Unions have done much to sink the big three.