UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
The Changeover: Labor Relations
- LATEST COMMENTS
- Emily and David - thanks for having this topic on your ... - ChadSullivan
- I would agree with this thought if the workers were ... - Spetses
- Tom, I'm a working person, and I heard this ... - Spetses
"Welcome back to the White House!" These were the words Vice President Joe Biden had for labor leaders at a signing ceremony Friday, where President Obama signed three executive orders affecting federal workers. These new policies follow the first bill signed by Obama, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, and the creation of a Task Force on Middle Class Working Families. These changes signal a quickly transforming labor landscape, which some see as a reason to celebrate. Others, of course, have concerns.
Do you belong to a union? Do you employ unionized workers? What do these changes mean for you? What are your hopes and fears for the future of organized labor in the next four years?
GUESTS:
- Don McIntosh: Associate Editor of Northwest Labor Press
- Paula Barran: Partner in the law firm Barran Liebman
Tagged as: change · changeover · labor · transition · union
Photo credit: Old Sarge / Flickr / Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (17 total)
-
Here's the full video of President Obama's signing ceremony. (Biden's "Welcome back" comes at about the 10-minute point.)
David Miller — Tue Feb. 3rd 8:40p.m.
-
While working Americans have seen their wages stagnate for thirty years, the Republicans, with the support of the national Chamber of Commerce, are working to prevent the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow unions to be formed without having a full-blown election in the work place.
This means that workers will be able to choose whether they want a union without employers having the chance to intimidate or fire them, as is common under current law.What is particularly grotesque is to hear the Chamber of Commerce claim that they are fighting this bill to make sure that workers have a "secret ballot."
I am stunned at their sudden concern for the rights of workers when they have spent years attacking unionizing drives and the workers who attempt to get the benefits of unions in their work place.
-
My big problem is that my vote is private whether it be for president, senator or whether or not to join a union. Isn't that the fundamental right of every citizen.
People talk about employers intimidating workers. How about unions intimidating workers. My family has experienced first hand harassment from a union. We have also experienced good things from a union. I'll be honest the negative experience outweighed the postive experience and left me dis-illusioned with how people act when they just follow along and don't think for themselves.
Right now I am not part of a union and never have been but my husband is part of a union.
My big issue is PRIVACY.
-
Paula's description of EFCA is inaccurate. What EFCA does is allow WORKERS to decide whether to have a representation election. Currently, an employer can refuse employees the right to majority recognition and FORCE them through a drawn out election process that allows employers additional time to intimidate and scare employees. The Authorization cards that employees sign are PRIVATE already. The debate about EFCA is not over a "private ballot." The cards people sign are already private. The debate is over WHO HAS CONTROL over employees ability to organize.
-
For the caller who says unions aren't needed, he may not realize that, without a union, there are very few legal protections for workers- both here in Oregon and across the nation. Here in Oregon, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. You are an "at will" employee. Furthermore, while we all want to believe that our employers have our best interests at heart and will "protect us," the fact is that employer promises are only as good as the paper they're written on. Without a legally binding agreement between employees and their employer (i.e. a union contract) employees have no protection for thier rights on the job.
-
I would agree with this thought if the workers were relatively untrained and low skilled. Employers have to spend quite a bit to find good quality people and once they have them, often have to invest significant amounts in their training. A journeyman level person for instance costs a lot to develop. So, if there are no external reasons for an employer to cut workers, like lost customers, there is in fact a penalty associated with a qualified worker leaving for any reason - even if they left on their own accord to the competition.
-
What happened to the Japanese model of labor and employer collaboration? It was all the rage in the 80's and 90's ....
-
Germany is interesting in that companies are legally bound to take the interests of workers as equal to that of stockholders and management.
-
I love the scare tactics of pro-union people. LOL!
You all can have your union.
Can I still work as an independant in you now less profitable unionised company?
What about my right to work?
-
Before moving to Oregon I worked in New York City as project manager at a company doing high-end renovations. Our company employed non-union labor. On one job the union forced (they would throw out or impede our material deliveries if we didn't comply) us to take on two union workers. These two workers proceeded to do no work, while being billed at twice the rate of our workers. While on site they tried to get the other workers to join the union.
I very much support a workers right to a safe workplace and ample pay. The problem I see with unions, at least in the construction field, is that it creates an adversarial relationship between the company and the employee and relieves the worker of their responsibility to do quality work while paying them huge amounts of money. In my company in new york we had amazing workers who shared the same goal as the company: to provide excellent quality work. And my company rewarded them for it.
Another very interesting side of unions that I saw in new york was that they had worked themselves into a position so that all new buildings had to be constructed with union labor. Even if someone purchased an apartment before completion, and planned to gut the place and renovate it, the union workers had to finish the job. Afterward we would come in and tear out all the work and start again. It just seemed like such a huge waste, and I guess that's the impression that unions have left with me.
-
To put it politely, in my opinion, Ms. Barran is a very erudite dissembler.
The methods of lying are Generalizations, Deletions, and Distortions. When you listen to a program like this, you can get to the truth of things by listening for these three methods of dishonesty, and when you hear them ask yourself why that method was used.
Now. I might point out that working people are at work during the time of this program and so their views are for the most part, left out.
-
Tom,
I'm a working person, and I heard this program in the late evening.
-
I wish that Don McIntosh would have been allowed the same amount of airtime on your show today as was allowed to Ms. Barran. There was a lot more information he could have shared with your listeners on how hard it is to organize and how really unfair and one-sided it is to have a Union election in the workplace. Employees are forced to attend mandatory meetings put on by the employer, where they are lied to about the Union and threatened with take aways and or job elimination. The Employee Free Choice Act is a must for the middle class workers in this country.
-
Georgene,
We strive for balance in each of our shows, and thought that we basically achieved it today. Our guests always have more points to make than we have time for, but that's just one of the facts of live radio. (And of course it doesn't help to lose 10 minutes during our pledge drives, but we have to pay the bills!)
But thanks very much for comment. If there are specific points about union organizing that you'd like to share (are you the Georgene Barragan in this article?) we'd be happy if you did so here.
David Miller — Wed Feb. 4th 1:14p.m.
-
The main thing about EFCA that everyone talks about is the change to the union certification process and the elimination of the secret ballot election.
I'm curious what the guests think about the mandatory negotiation timeline that ends in binding arbitration. I don't really see how letting an arbitrator decide the parties first CBA is a good idea. Arbitrators usually aren't experts in running a business, and should not be able to make this decision.
-
Unions are like abortions. Nobody really wants to get involved with one until you need one. They offer value to society when some party has failed to behave in their longterm interest. It is unfortunate, I feel, that unions are necessary with some employers, as in my experience they create inefficiency, entitlement mentality, diminish the treatment of people as individuals, and can supress rewards for their individual achievment. That said, they are an essential market force in the relationship between worker and employer in that they create a consequence to an employer if they cannot adequately care for the majority of their employees concerns. Thus, the concept of the company making all ethical and honest efforts to convince their employees not to unionize is in itself a good thing as they will have faced the competition for the management of the employees welfare and will pay more attention to that responsibility in future. If they fail they may not win that role the next round. Any employer who does not accept this competition and fires employees for suggesting a union would likely have other behaviors in the marketplace that are unethical or illegal.
-
Emily and David - thanks for having this topic on your show. I do however agree with the comment that you gave more time to the anti-union lawyer. Don't get defensive - that's just a fact - take a look at the amount of actual time each one spoke and how many questions you asked each one. This is a common tactic of anti-union lawyers, monopolize time by talking incessantly. I also wish that we could get to a place again in this country where the value of unions weren't debated. anyone who actually looks at the evidence - in terms of higher pay, better benefits, lower turnover, higher productivity - will see that unions, more often than not, add value to companies and our country. Anti-Union folks need to remember that unions are only a tool that you use wisely or mis-use. That doesn't mean that _unions_ are bad.
In terms of Employee Free Choice - this is not about privacy and secret ballots, because the vote is not secret now. imagine voting for president or u.s. senate and having your boss call you into a one on one meeting to question you about your vote, bribe you for your vote, intimidate you for your vote, or even fire you. illegal? yes. proveable? not often. punishable? rarely and if so weakly. So let's change the system and make it more fair and more private. if you want a union - sign a card. if you don't - don't.
-
