The tenure system and other things unions fight for to cement job security are similarly short-sighted. In our global economy with its streamlined capital flows, companies come and go much faster than they used to. The one-employer-for-life model is a dangerous relic, leaving employees vulnerable to disappearing companies and insolvent pension funds. The best job security a worker can have is a competitive, up-to-date skill set. You don't maintain that if your union is shielding you from competitive pressure.

The biggest issue is tenure. I think the tenure system needs to be reformed. Three years and in is a terrible system. I think there should be a graduated system where newer teachers get regular, tough evaluations and pass through certain levels of service before they get progressively more permanent tenure. Only the best should get full tenure.

Universities work this way, to an extent.

On occasion? Defending mediocre workers is unions' stock in trade.

I used to wonder why teachers' unions, for example, fought so vehemently against schools' efforts to dismiss underperforming teachers. Labor is their product, after all, so why don't they stand up for its quality? Why aren't they the *first* to weed out underperfomers?

I finally figured it out. You can't have a union-of-the-elite, where only 20% of the potential workforce is good enough to qualify, because the other 80% will oppose you. If you're giving management a hard time too, you basically have no friends; politically it's not a stable arrangement. Ynions have to be champions of the mediocre.

Unions aren't perfect. Nor are they the panacea for what ails American workers. On occasion they defend mediocre workers and obstruct reasonable employer demands.

But the general principle of forming a union is supposed to be: if workers want to form a union, they can form one. Employers are not supposed to have a say in that decision. If they do, the workers will feel intimidated and worry that they will lose their jobs just for bringing the subject up.

Under the current system the union organizers get 30% of the employees to ask for a union and then they have an election.

Under the new law, the union organizers would not have to call for an election at the 30% mark, they would keep going until they got 50% plus one of the employees and then no election would be allowed. It would specifically be banned by law. So the concern is that union organizers would pressure people into signing.

What I don't get is what the problem with the current system is ?

We get 30% of workers to say they want a union (which in theory could mean 70% don't) and an election takes place. It is supervised by the NLRB and is totally secret. Why would a union and/or a union supporter care about a secret ballot if a majority of the workers support them ?

And what illegal tactics ?

And since when is GEORGE MCGOVERN a tool of the evil capitalist system ? Having him oppose EFCA is kind of like Ronald Reagan coming out and saying we shouldn't cut taxes. It's pretty significant.

As to the ad, I've dealt with union guys just like that, they are not happy campers if you don't support them 100% and in fact they tend to rough you up if you support the wrong candidates (and yes, it has happened to me personally).

The purpose of the Wagner Act of 1935 was to allow workers to form a union if they desire. Period. Subsequent attempts by management to intimidate workers has helped to make certification elections more difficult. (Unions have declined for other reasons – primarily the decline of manufacturing jobs. But employer intimidation has helped to break unions – and keep real wages down.) Under the Wagner Act, which established modern union law, it is up to workers – not management – to decide if they want a union.

The only reason employers fear the Employee Free Choice Act is that they will no longer be able to use illegal tactics to intimidate workers who wish to form a union.