What if we lived in a country where private employees were forced to unionize, even if most hadn’t agreed to? Spoiler alert: We do — thanks to the recent decision of an unelected three-person panel.
This new reality came about in 2010, when a voting rule enacted through the Railway Labor Act was stripped away by the National Mediation Board (NMB). This resulted in the potential for groups of railroad and airline workers to be unionized without the majority of them being in favor of it. Now, only a majority of those who choose to vote, as opposed to a majority of the total, are needed to unionize. To allow the fate of the majority of workers to be decided by only a small handful is not only undemocratic — it fails to protect private-industry workers at a time when they need it the most.
Not only does this new rule disregard a fair and democratic precedent that’s been maintained in the industry for 75 years, it does so in the face of an American public fed up with regulatory agencies’ infringing upon private industry. In a time when our country is clearly calling for less intrusion on free enterprise in order to stimulate our weak economy and create more jobs, why should union bosses be allowed to unfairly take control of more industries for their own political incentives?
What’s more appalling is the argument that reinstating the 75-year-old democratic rule somehow hinders union organization. To the contrary, union representation has been the result in more than two-thirds of the 1,850 elections reported since 1935. An average of 72 percent of employees in these industries are represented by unions.
This week, my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. This bill includes a provision to reverse this NMB decision. It would restore fairness and integrity to the choice to unionize.
As Americans continue to call for a stronger economy, less spending, and more jobs, we cannot stand idly by and let union leaders push fairness and democracy aside. With the House voting on the FAA Reauthorization Bill this week, we have a chance to make our country a place where people choose unions again — instead of unions choosing them.
— Rep. Phil Gingrey is a Republican congressman from Georgia.
If this is undemocratic, so are all elections where one is elected with 50% plus one of the vote, not a majority of qualified voters!
Presumably, it is relatively easy to vote in union elections. If one cares, then one will vote for or against the union. If one does not care, one does not vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIncumbents choose their voters through gerrymandering. This just extends the principle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe United States does not recognize a principle that a majority of eligible voters must vote for the prevailing side in order for that vote to be democratic. (Other countries do, which is why they have a turnout threshold for a valid elections.) Many members of Congress are elected by plurality; and almost none of them are chosen in elections that reach even 50% turnout. And within even the House of Representatives, only more Congressmen need to vote in favor of a bill than against it—members may choose not to vote and, as long as there is quorum, the bill has passed the House.
I agree with the Congressman's position—it was improper for the regulatory board to overturn 80 years of statutory interpretation to benefit their union allies—but his argument leaves something to be desired.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's the game plan? Does the House vote to overturn this, and then the legislation never receives a vote in the Senate?
Or is this something that can be attached to "must pass" legislation?
We need our elected representatives to do more than posture.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA question to those of you who are referencing the election of individuals - what would you propose to do if *no* candidate gets the vote of more than 50% of the population? Leave the office empty?
Granted, there's some attractiveness to the idea of empty government offices, but in the end it doesn't work. Turnout thresholds are only valid for referenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnions influence timing of unionization votes, play around with the set of workers who would be unionized and therefore would be eligible to vote, can fund campaigns expecting to recoup their costs through the new mandatory dues payers. And the election isn’t a choice among representatives, it’s a referendum on whether to have a representative. So maybe unions should meet a higher threshold than the author had to meet to win his seat in congress.
So why write about decisions by an “unelected” panel (Bush v. Gore was decided by an elected panel?) and why call majority vote “undemocratic?”
The author is leading with inflammatory rhetoric that’s failing even with those of us who hope the bill passes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Nathan, the most important point here; these are union votes. I have been involved in three union organizing efforts, one w/Teamsters, two w/CWA. I worked on the Union side. All three efforts were managed by unprincipled people and conducted in a campaign of lies and general dishonesty.
Allan, part of the tactics of these dishonest people is to discourage voting by the most disinterested and getting out the vote of the disaffected. In the meantime, the company officials are generally precluded from making serious efforts to combat these strategies.
These experiences were part of what turned me from a screaming, and stupidly blind, leftest. Too many people like me are lead down this path, thereby, giving strength, power, and influence to the unscrupulous little people who conduct these unionizing efforts.
We need people in positions of power and influence, i.e. the Senator, to use others means to stop the unionizers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf your Congressman was elected according to the new NMB unionization rules: 1) He would never have to stand for election again. 2) He could force his constituents to join his political party and pay mandatory dues. 3) Removing him from office would take a minimum of two years and require cards from 35% of eligible voters expressing interest in holding an election. Sounds like [D]emocracy to me!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a BATTLE between us (Tax Payers, Private Job Market workers) and the Government Employee Unions! Are you ready? It's going to be a tough battle, these unions are using modern-era protection racketeering (just like the MOB used to use, they go to businesses and force them to either support the unions or get a brick thrown through the window or a protest at your workplace, The Teacher Unions and the NEA are the worst! The Public ED system was designed to keep us stupid and compliant and LOVE Big Government). They are nothing but a bunch of Communist!
"Workers rights?
Let me tell you what workers rights are. You have a right to be paid for the work you do at a mutually agreed upon wage. You have a right to work in an environment that is, in so far as is possible, free from hazards which could affect your safety and your health. The right that you do not have is the right to leave the taxpayers out of the process when you negotiate for these wages, when you negotiate for your benefits, and when you negotiate for your working conditions. Right now in this country the government employee unions literally hire the people that they negotiate with. This they do with massive union contributions and get out the vote support for the candidates they favor. When it comes time to negotiate for wages or benefits the union leaders know that the very people that they're negotiating with our people that they put in office. The unwritten language of these negotiation sessions is:
"Look, give us what we want and then go to the taxpayers to get the money that you need to pay for it. The taxpayers really aren't going to recognize the fact that our wages and benefits are far better than theirs, but our union members will dang sure recognize that fact if we fail at these negotiations. So if you want the votes; if you want to campaign contributions; then you better keep our union members happy and you better keep them well paid so that we can collect those fumes union dues from them and pass off your share to you when campaign time rolls around."
In Florida the government union leaders and members are so completely outraged that there is now a businessman in the governor's office. They know that this is a businessman they cannot shove around, and they're scared to death. As I understand it, sometime in the next few weeks these government worker unions in Florida are going to start up a campaign which they will call "Reclaim the State."
Reclaim the state from who?
Reclaim the state for who?
I'll tell you from who and for who. The Florida government employee unions plan to reclaim the state from the voters and the taxpayers FOR the government union members. You need to understand just what type of a fight you are in here. These government worker unions believe that they are entitled to their jobs, they are entitled to the benefits, they are entitled to pensions, they are entitled to the free health insurance, and that they are entitled to have their political allies rape the taxpayers and ordinary citizens by levying whatever confiscatory tax structure they need to enact in order to afford to give the union members what they believe is rightfully theirs.
The government employee unions across the country have some pretty strong allies in their battle against the taxpayers. One very strong ally in particular, the Democrat Party. You cannot forget the massive amounts of money that these government employee unions donate to political campaigns; and you must remember that 95% of these donations are made to Democrats candidates. Government employee unions, and especially the insipid and dangerous teachers unions, are the number one financial supporters of the big government high tax Democrat party in this country. So when it comes to these moronic union members marching around with their "Support Workers Rights" signs in Madison, Tallahassee, Columbus, and other state capitals around the country, the ordinary put-upon taxpayers have to remember that the right these union members are trying to protect is their right to stick their hands in your pockets." - Boortz
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis has been happening for years in California state employment.
We tried three times to decertify SEIU as our union (I never joined and wanted to get out of the union).
Each time, the majority of votes cast called for decertification. However, the union said it won, because not a majority of people eligible to vote cast a no vote.
They can't win fair and square, so they made up the rules to fit their needs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse