One small reason I will never leave Eugene is the local paper. Red Guard or Register Greed it has something for everyone. And on some special days, days like today, you get out of bed and you are rewarded with two, count 'em, two awesome editorials. These are the kind of editorials that have me making coffee, doing the dishes, and cleaning the kitchen immediately after I read them, just so I can rush to my computer and share them with you.
The first is by Charles Murray, he of the totally not-discredited The Bell Curve. I don't know Charles Murray in any way, but from now on, he will be a touchstone for me. Let's say one day I screw up so bad at the GTFF that my name becomes something of a laughingstock in the union world. I mean, not everyone knows the "Legend of Dave" level laughingstock, but more of the "you know who that guy is?" type laughingstock. Let's say that happens. How the hell would I get out of bed every goddamn day? How could I do it? I might just follow the example laid down by Charles Murray. I'd get out of that bed everyday and keep peddling the same brand of bullshit that got me put in the stocks in the first place, with a heavy dose of "you wait and see, in twenty years everyone will know I was right." I'll be able to keep that up until Ginger can go on PERS and then who will be laughing then?
This article turns out to be kind of old. One of the draw backs to the Red Greed is that they still get all their editorials by Pony Express, so we're a week behind the curve here. Still, this level of insane does not get old. If you haven't read it, please, please do. Especially if you fancy yourself a social scientist. There are going to be some major changes to your field coming and you'll want to get the inside scoop now. Especially if you are about to write a dissertation. Please, do not be planning on givng job talks and spewing the same bs about postmodernism, Marx, and/or Stalin. That shit won't fly any more. The future of social science? In one word? Aquinus. In two words? Nicomachean Ethics. That's right, the future is the past and that future/past is a little something that you and I call the Dark Ages.
I really, really, really want everyone to read the article. It is long, it is full, it is batshit. You won't You're busy people. Lord knows that if you are not watching every second of that basketball game then [insert team name here] will lose. Then you will be forced to question your whole way of life. [If that does happen, Heaven forbid, I am sure Charles Murray would support my recommendation that you look here as a good place to start rebuilding. ]
Just when my morning is off to a peak start, I see that there is an article about EFCA written by a local businessman. I was not looking forward to reading this here article, as it almost certainly was going to be a regurgitation of right-wing talking points, only without the professional polish a wingnut blogger brings to the table. Fortunatley, Don Tykeson takes a different approach.
Sentance 5:
Current laws already give unions significant advantages over employers in organizing campaigns.I don't even know how to respond to such a charge. I feel like Scooby-Doo tilting his head when he hears Grandpa rip a loud one. Hmnh??Tykeson doesn't explicitly explain this statement, but if you read the article you can piece together the world view that would lead one to believe that unions have all the advantages.
Let's say you're the average business owner. You spend 70 to 80 hours a week trying to come up with ways to make the lives of your employees better, right? You've done all you can. Then along comes this union. They start talking to workers. Stirring up trouble, intimidating people. The next thing you know, your faced with some union election and you've only got
By abolishing secret ballots, card check defies the principles U.S. labor laws were founded upon — that employees have the right to make decisions free of coercion from companies or unions.See how hard it is for a businessman out there? Now that we can all agree card check would be a bad idea, let's take a moment to consider the horror that is binding arbitration.
In addition to safeguarding voter privacy and giving a voice to all workers, secret ballots give employers their only opportunity, typically a mere 40 to 60 days, to counter arguments of union organizers, who usually have been campaigning for months.
Despite the small window current labor laws give businesses to share their side of the story before a secret ballot vote, they often present enough facts to swing many employees against unionization.
Let's say you're a business owner and your employees have disastrously decided to form a union. You are still obligated to make sure that all of your employees are taken care of, right? That means that you can't just sign any contract the union puts on the table. No sir. You have to fight to make sure that you get a contract that is good for all your employees. And if, while you are negotiating that contract over the period of a couple of years or so, and some union leaders are fired for performance issues, and some employees petition for a decertification election, then, well, that's what the employees want. What can you as a businessman do but fight for what is best for all employees?
Now the government wants to get in the game. They will only allow you 120 days to
The government could prevent the shop from installing safer, more efficient machines. They could determine who gets promoted, irrespective of merit. They could force the shop to fire anyone not paying union dues.They could even prevent you from giving raises to your employees! What kind of world is this?
What union proponents fail to acknowledge is that the landscape has changed since the first labor laws were passed in the 1930s, when worker mistreatment was common. Today’s employers realize the advantages of fair pay and fair treatment, making heavily skewed pro-union laws less necessary.
I don't know about you all, but I am perfectly willing to have the EFCA debate - and it looks like we'll be having it for a couple more years - as an argument about current employment practices. If the people "vote" that their employer treats them great and they don't need a union, then great, we have already won. I have a feeling, though, that many people who read this article joined me in a heart chuckle and they have a little bit more of a positive opinion about EFCA than they did before they read it.
P.S. A bonus from the letters to the editor defending the AIG bonuses:
They were working stiffs, albeit rich stiffs, who were working under contract, for which they expected to be paid.Market manipulators as "working stiffs" oh Lord.
