Of course unions are going to try to amass power for themselves, that's what businesses do as well. But unions need people in the unions to have the kind of power you're talking about. If unions didn't provide some kind of benefit, people would never join them, or risk their jobs trying to.

So, if we agree that there are those confusing the concept of 'labor costs' with 'wages', how about the fact that the non-union shops are paying more than the union ones, and not only in the auto industry but many others? And that si before you take into consideration the union dues that are taken out of the checks of union employees.

The harsh reality is that, as a whole, the U.S. unions do not exist to better the conditions of the union workers. They exist to fund themselves and amass political power.

Have you ever seen the salaries and perks of the heads of the big unions? They have learned a lot apparently from years of sitting across the table from Big Business executives!

Since the only “freedom” liberals believe in is the “freedom” to do things liberals approve of, liberals are supporting card check so that union thugs will have the freedom to bully people into paying union dues, and workers won't have the freedom to vote “no” without risk of their tires being slached, their windows broken, etc.

I'm surprised you are advocating curtailing the pension benefit payouts, but OK, when you do, I will revise my numbers.

It seems to me a better approach would be stronger penalties against companies for illegal tactics if that is the root of the problem.

manufacturing still exists in this country, don't get me wrong. but in the context of the larger economy, it's not where most of the union-organizing action is.

except that kind of intimidation is already illegal. and unlike the toothless penalties for the employer's illegal discharges, the penalties against unions are quite severe: RICO charges, trusteeship, removal of the union officers, etc.

if your point is that both the union and employer have the power to initimidate employees, of course you are right. the difference is under the current system it is extremely easy for the employer to get away with it whereas it is very difficult for the union to without suffering harsh consequences.

if instead of a card check you're proposing making the discharge of union supporters a criminal offense, subjective the company to large fines and jail time (like under RICO) and require that the CEO and board of directors of any company that fires someone for their union activity be removed from office, that would seem like a fair substitute to me.

So what's the answer? I'm not so sure we can keep enough good jobs in this country while embracing globalization. Perhaps it's time to start engaging in protectionism before we're all working in health care or service jobs.

And not kept secret from union organizers, who are never known to use intimidation or violence to get their way, right?

Face it, EFCA supporters: A “secret ballot” that's not secret to one side isn't “secret” at all. This is a huge, anti-democratic power-grab by unions, not a solution to a supposed problem that has many other less-drastic solutions, as other have pointed out.

Is this what they want? I mean, why the hell would anyone stay in business here in America once this passes. Move the company to Mexico and pay even cheaper wages.

This is just stupid. We live in a global market people. As such, if the wages paid to people, or the benefits become to expensive, IE, the Steel industry, the auto industry. Guess what, you lose market share. Which makes it that much harder to compete or provide those benefits.

Also, i know they want to go after Wal-mart with their 4% profit margin. Just means the poor people will have to pay the extra tax. But then that is what always happens when the government interferes in the market place.

Now imagine that categorical proof is available on actual votes in union elections (which are already rife with intimidation, collusion and violence at times, from both sides).

while those terminations are technically illegal, the penalties for doing it are really weak, proving motive in any termination case is difficult, and those cases take years to adjudicate. even if the terminations are ruled to be illegal, by that time the unionization campaign is long over, and the amount the employer is likely to pay in penalties is likely to be a lot less than it would cost them to have a unionized work force. that's why anti-union consultants advise their clients to break the law and fire people for speaking in favor of the union. in a cost-benefit analysis, the current law encourages lawbreaking behavior.

the benefit of card check is that employees can fill out the cards before the employer is aware of the unionization campaign. in a sense, it's a different kind of secret ballot. it's just this time the secret is being kept from the employer.

Card check does away with this problem by allowing employees to unionize without an election, but there is more than one way to solve the problem. For example, you could create stiffer penalties for illegal labor practices, or you could eliminate the delay between sign-up and election. These issues are addressed at length, and well, in T.A. Frank's recent article in the Washington Monthly, The Little Unions That Couldn't, at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/…

As for the issue of unions pressuring employees to unionize through card check, I guess the question is, who do you think is more likely to abuse the system as it is currently configured, the unions or Wal-Mart? Personally, I'm guessing that the unions, and not Wal-Mart, are more likely to have the employees' best interests in mind. As Frank notes, “workplace votes on unionization certainly don’t resemble a healthy election as most Americans would understand the term.”

In any event, I see no reason why there should not be severe penalties for illegal practices by the unions, just like there should be for the employers.

However, there is a difference between the two methods. Under current U.S. law, the employer need not recognize the express wishes of its workers through a majority sign-up card check petition and can require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB. Thus, an employer may refuse to bargain with or even acknowledge a union chosen by most of its workers through majority sign-up.

Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, workers would be guaranteed the right for the union they choose to be recognized, whether they choose it through majority sign-up (card-check) or an election process. The choice of whether and how to organize into a union would thus belong to the workers themselves instead of to companies. Introduced originally in the U.S. Congress in 2005 and again in 2007 and 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act provides that the NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if a majority of employees have authorized that representation via majority sign-up (card check), without requiring a secret ballot election.[4] [5] The Employee Free Choice Act allows employees to choose a secret ballot process to elect union representation if they do not desire a card-check petition, but employers are required to accept whichever method employees choose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check#Current…

It sounds like the idea is to force employers to recognize the validity of the union through either process. Makes sense to me, if the workers want to be open about the process they should have the backing of the law.