[Peace-discuss] right to association, right to a union

[Ricky Baldwin]

I think it remains to be demonstrated that "too much regulation" is actually "driving business away" from Illinois.  Closer examination may well show that this state has a lot less regulation, tax, etc., than other places where business is booming.  (The "Asian Miracle", for example, is often held up as an example of the success of "free" trade and "free"markets - except that the countries involved have chosen precisely the opposite path, that of heavy government involvement, which has contributed to their successes.)

 Ricky


"Only those who do nothing make no mistakes." - Peter Kropotkin




________________________________
From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:42:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] right to association, right to a union

No genuine fellowship?  A sense of humour is helpful.

The reductio ad absurdum requires some absurdity on the part of the
reducer too.

You ought not construe a total lack of compassion to be the only
product of
 one's desire to be free from oppression.

It was obvious that this was/is a loaded issue and a wedge concept to
be expected after the call for fellowship.

A quest for smoothness always turns up some snags and burrs.

There is a need for the rule of law since there is property that is
held collectively but
not all property is held collectively.

Since it is true that too much regulation is damaging the economy of
Illnois
and the country, one should be leery of adding more regulations,
since as you so properly noted present laws are not being enforced.


John W. wrote: 


On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Robert
Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:


I
find it kind of bizarre that because I want to guarantee the rights
of workers to organize you basically call me un-American and tell me
to leave the country. It's not unprecedented, but I didn't expect it
on this list.

It illustrates perfectly why progressives can have no genuine
fellowship with libertarians, even if they do agree on a few issues. 
With libertarians it always comes down sooner or later to the very core
of their philosophy: "Me, me, me, and the hell with the rest of you. 
How dare you 'hold a gun to my head' (one of their favorite cliches)
and FORCE me to care about anyone else but myself?"

Ugh.



 
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:37 AM, E. Wayne
Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
wrote:

> It's pretty easy to get Canadian citizenship, Bob.
>
> One thing a person can always do it vote with their feet.  I
> did that in '96 and it was the right thing to do.  One can always
> question why it was that I came back here, though.  :-)
> But the reasons seem to have been valid for returning to the US.
>
> It is not desirable to have a culturally uniform world or even a
culturally
> uniform USA
> or even a culturally uniform Illinois, Champaign County, or Urbana
for that
> matter.
>
> The United States are sovereign states.  Remember the 10th
amendment.
>
> Of course Canada is going to be a lot more like Europe than we are
 here and
> that is a good thing.
> The canadians still have the Queen on their money.  Canada is a
much
> different country
> than we are and comparing us to Canada and saying that they are
right and we
> are wrong
> ought to be pretty damn offensive to any American.
>
> Under our constitution if the people in Massachusetts want to
smoke Catalpa
> beans and
> barbecue guinea pigs, tom cats and canaries, thats cool with me
and they
> have every right to do so, and
> we ought not be pushing the federal government to stop them from
it if we
> dont like it.
>
> If Venezuela chooses to be governed by a wise and benevolent
dictator that
> is no concern of mine.
>
> It's the whole idea of one group trying to impose their will by
force upon
> another, when that group is in a
> sovereign state that is fundamentally wrong.  It's the thing that
MLK warned
> America about in regard
> to being arrogant.
> *
> We do need to return to the rule of law and enforce the laws that
we have
> within our borders
> rather than trying to police the world.
>
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> The relationship is already antagonistic, in the sense that the two
> groups have different interests; what's tragic is that one side has
> almost all the power, which is a recipe for abuse. Having a union
> helps equalize things a little.
>
> The most straightforward way to measure the pendulum is to compare
the
> U.S. to Canada and Western Europe. The U.S. is the outlier in
terms of
> its labor relations, its fundamental failure to respect workers
basic
> rights.
>
> Speaking about miners: remember recent U.S. mine "accidents", and
the
> workers who died, and of course it was revealed in each case that
> there were massive safety violations. Around the same time, there
was
> a mining accident in Canada. Only, in Canada, they have the safety
> features that the US owners are too cheap to comply with: a sealed
> room with oxygen, etc, and the oxygen is actually there. So they
bring
> out the Canadian miners a day later, and they're joking about how
they
> had the day off and played cards; they were never in any danger.
> That's what being a worker in an industrialized democracy is like,
> when you have strong unions.
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:55 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
wrote:
>
>
> I have seen people who suffer from black lung and it's a tragic
situation.
> It's also tragic that the workers have had to organize themselves
in an
> antagonistic relationship
> in order to accomplish change.
>
> I am most certainly not anti-union but how far does pendulum need
to swing
> before its enough?
>
>
>
> Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>
> My father used to be a union representative when he worked for the
State of
> Illinois and some of the grievances brought before him often had
to do with
> petty behavior from managers,supervisors, and other employees.  My
mother
> helped unionize employees at Parkland College several years ago and
> participated in contract negotiations.
>
> In many organizations office politics are an unavoidable part of
the
> professional landscape and unions are able to protect individuals
who are
> unfairly targeted. A well run union structure does not prevent a
bad
> employee from getting fired, but does allow the individual due
process.
> Often what gets negotiated are things such as pay scales,
benefits, and
> eliminating health and safety risks to employees in contract
procedures.
> This is in addition to the due process I mentioned.
>
> For instance, my father handled a grievance from a woman who was
being
> harassed by her co-workers. When he investigated the people who
were bugging
> this woman claimed that she was not getting her work done and her
> performance was dismal. So he calculated the caseloads being
handled by the
> complaining employee and her accusers and found that she actually
had a
> higher level of productivity than the individuals who were
attempting to
> create trouble for her. Needless to say when he presented his
findings it
> shut a few people up.
>
> It's interesting that the example of coal minors are brought up
here.  One
> of the reasons why unions formed for coal minors was to force
industry to do
> a better job of safeguarding the well being of employees. How many
coal
> minors have died due to the mine caving in or from poor air
quality?  One of
> my uncles worked in the coal mines in Southern Illinois and,
amongst his
> list of health problems, he suffers from black lung as a direct
result of
> his work in the mines.
>
> The unfortunate truth is that employers cannot be counted on to
provide safe
> working conditions, fair wages, and reasonable benefits simply out
of the
> kindness of their heart. Even though research can be presented to
them which
> shows a correlation between productivity and working conditions -
the truth
> is many employers only pay lip service to the research.  Their
goal is to
> get the maximum profit with the least amount of effort.
>
> Employee welfare often does not become a concern until it hits the
employer
> in the pocketbook. For instance Mitsubishi had to pay 34 million
in damages
> after a class action lawsuit was brought against them due to sexual
> harassment.  More recently Starbucks has faced lawsuits due to
their
> practice of having  baristas share tips with shift supervisors. A
well
> organized union not only protects employees, but it can also save
the
> employers millions of dollars in legal fees.
>
> Marti
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 12:37 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
wrote:
>
>
> Ricky,
> I don't have any workers.  Its just my wife and I, but if I were
employing
> someone I would want them to wear the sort of
> socks that I told them to, and I would like to be able to fire
them simply
> because I didnt like their attitude, and I would not
> desire the hassle of being second-guessed by some 3rd party for my
> management decision.
>
> If they work for me, they are there to do a job and if they wont
or cant
> do it then I don't need them around.
>
> It sounds like to me that this law you favour aims at putting the
workers
> in charge of the production.  That might
> be ok provided that its their business to begin with, meaning that
they
> provided the innovation, management and
> sweat to get the thing going.  Quite frankly most of the workers
are
> incapable of doing that, otherwise they would be
> working for themselves in their own shop rather than punching the
clock
> for someone else.  I don't mean that
> to sound belittling or deprecating of others.
>
> I have been self employed most but not all of my  adult life.  I
started
> driving a tractor on the farm at age 9.  I worked in
> the oil field as a roughneck beginning at age 13.  It was
dangerous work
> but it paid good and I made enough
> money to buy some cows that along with working oil field in
summers I was
> able to get through college and get
> a DVM degree in 1980.   After that I had my own business in the
> countryside for fifteen years.  I have had an
> few employees in the office at times.  It's a hassle having
employees.
>
> I went to China in 1996 and worked a few years for the Chinese
government
> for $250 (two hundred and fifty dollars) per month.  It cost me
about half
> of that
> for my housing.  I lived exactly as the Chinese live, ate what
they eat,
> did what they did, washed my clothes by hand.  We worked 7 days a
week most
> of the time,
> we worked on Christmas day like it was just another day (but I met
my wife
> the first time working on one Christmas day)
> and we frequently worked through the night.  No one ever
complained about
> work.  No one ever complained that they were cold.
> Nobody complained that they didnt have any money.  Lots of times I
had to
> dig through my desk to find enough money
> to buy breakfast (it cost about a quarter).  We did have some fun
> describing in eloquent terms how hot it was.  It got up to 45C
(113F) in the
> summer of 1997.  Nobody
> laid down their work and went home.  We were excited about the
work that
> we were doing and that was enough most of the
> time.  If you got sick, you went to the hospital and they gave you
a
> combination of herbal and Western medicine
> and you got over it.  I had a root canal without anaesthesia.  The
pain
> was brief but very intense.
>
> After I got married, I did need a better job so I quit the
ministry of
> agriculture and got a consulting job.
>
> I do understand hard work and labour and poverty, and although at
times my
> poverty might have been
> somewhat voluntary, there were times when it most certainly was
not.
>
> The coal mines in southern Illinois were unionized.  The workers
were on
> strike almost more often
> than they were employed.  Finally the coal mines were shut down
and the
> workers either moved away
> or got jobs in the prisons.
>
> I really dont know anything much else about unions or union
workers except
> when I worked for the
> University of Illinois in 2001 to 2004 and the farms were
unionized.  The
> university farms had cows dying because
> the workers didnt know what the  they were doing, er...they needed
more
> training, and they didnt care and the department heads at the
university
> didnt
> dare fire them.  From what I have seen it doesnt appear that
unions are
> compatible with agriculture.
>
> >From my perspective it looks like excessive regulation and
excessive
> pressure from unions is driving business out of Illinois
> and out of the United States.  I have visited Canada.  It's a real
nice
> place except that there are so many Canadians there.
>
> If employers are good, they will take good care of their workers.
 I work
> for some farms who have had the same workers employed there
> for more than 20 years.  The manager of the farms treat them like
they are
> members of the family.
>
> On the other hand, I have worked for people who are abusive of
workers and
> they typically don't get very good results.
> I do have sympathy for everyone in those situations.
>
> I do think that all workers are employed by will, and that it is
the right
> of the worker to quit and the right of the employer to fire.
> If your proposed law is aimed at destroying that relationship, you
will
> just export more jobs to places where a more satisfactory
> production environment exists and further damage the US economy.
>
> Please explain the law you propose more clearly if I have missed
> something.
>
> It looks like to me from the research I have done that this bill
has
> passed the House but got hung up in
> the Senate.
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> Not sure who's doing AWARE's agenda for Sunday meetings these
days, but
> I'd like to put an endorsement request out for discussion.  It's
from Jobs
> With Justice, to which AWARE belongs, and which was instrumental
in starting
> US Labor Against the War.
>
>
>
> Jobs With Justice and many other organizations are currently
pushing – and
> trying to collect a million postcards in support of – national
 legislation
> to protect an important right of association that has been under
severe
> assault because it threatens the steep American gradient of power
between
> employer and employee: a workers' right to join with his or her
co-workers
> in a union.  The bill is called the "Employee Free Choice Act,"
and it's
> nothing to sneeze at.
>
>
>
> Since 1935, in response to mass uprisings of workers – many of
them thrown
> out of work in the Great Depression – the US Congress enacted and
the
> President signed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also
known as the
> "Wagner Act," establishing the right to form, join and participate
in unions
> as the official policy of the US government.  It was a compromise,
enacted
> to stave off a feared revolution of the type that other countries
had
> experienced, notably in 1848 and 1917-1925.  It did not cover
everyone.  It
> specifically excluded large classes of workers – agricultural and
domestic
> workers, both much more numerous than today – mainly as a means of
cutting
> out Southern blacks and poor whites from the New Deal.
>
>
>
> But in the wake of passage, union membership increased in the US
to over
> 30 percent, raising the overall standards of wages, safety on the
job, etc.,
> even for non-union workers.  Union-sponsored legislation, like the
OSHA Act
> in 1970 – which has saved thousands of workers' lives even with
its faults,
> began improving the lives of all workers.  But it was no panacea,
and it was
> certainly not invulnerable to attack from anti-worker forces.
>
>
>
> The Wagner Act and its many "reforms" added afterwards, when the
threat of
> revolution had cooled, also took the US down a different path than
other
> industrialized nations have taken.  There are two legal doctrines
concerning
> workers that most Americans have never heard of, and not because
they slept
> through high school social studies classes.  One is called the
> "master-servant" relationship, which basically says if your
employer orders
> you to do something, you have to do it (with some minor
limitations,
> obviously, for illegal activity, etc.) or you could be disciplined
or fired
> – there are few exceptions, including civil service regulations
for some
> public employees, and union contracts.
>
>
>
> Second, workers who are unrepresented by a union are "employed at
will,"
> meaning they can be fired "at any time for any reason or no
reason."
> Obviously there are a few legal restrictions there, too: racial,
sexual or
> religious discrimination, etc.  Can you be fired even if you did
nothing
> wrong?  Absolutely.  For voting Democrat or Republican or Green?
 If you're
> not a public employee and you don't have a union, absolutely.  You
can be
> fired because you wear socks the boss doesn't like.  You can be
fired just
> because.  Does this really happen?  Yep - the relative operation
of the
> employers' "economic interest" can be debated, but it happens -
and there is
> nothing illegal about it – at least not in this country.
>
>
>
> Workers in the US who are eligible for union rights and who wish
to take
> full advantage of union protections can't just sign up and BANG
they get
> union rights.  No, workers in the US have to win an election
process – one
> in which workers could be prohibited from union organizing on the
job, union
> organizers could be barred from the premises entirely, and
employers and
> managers were permitted to hold "captive audience" meetings to
slander the
> union and threaten mass layoffs or plant closings.  Employers and
managers
> also frequently call individuals into the office for a nice, quiet,
> intimidating "chat," one on one.  Employers frequently fire the
ringleaders
> if they can identify them, even though this is illegal (it's hard
to prove),
> and hire union-busting law firms to run intimidation campaigns,
spy on
> workers, spread rumors and sew any kind of dissent they can think
of.
>
>
>
> Employers may also hire new employees – such as family members –
who they
> know to oppose unionization, or to whom they can promise the moon,
and thus
> dilute the vote.  They may also declare that certain employees are
> "supervisors" and thus ineligible to vote, and so on.
>
>
>
> Penalties for employer misbehavior are woefully inadequate: often
the
> sentence is posting a notice in the workplace stating that the
employer has
> violated such and such provision, blah, blah, blah.  Penalties for
the
> workers and their unions who violate guidelines, on the other
hand, can
> amount to one of the worst things that can happen, besides being
fired and
> having a pay cut: they lose their right to a union.
>
>
>
> Even if the workers win a union election, employers may keep them
tied up
> in court for years afterwards or may refuse to bargain a fair
contract.
> According to the law, if the union cannot win a contract with the
employer
> there could be another election to get rid of unionization, and
under the
> oppressive circumstances that prevail the disgruntled employees
may change
> their votes (if they are even the same workers – employers often
use this
> time to drive off the strong union supporters).
>
>
>
> So what does the Employee Free Choice Act do about all this?  It
doesn't
> address all of it.  There are a lot of things I'd like to see
fixed in labor
> law, primarily who's eligible.  But one thing it does establish is
a right
> that Canadians, for example, take for granted.  If more than half
the
> workers at a workplace want a union, they get it.  Period.  They
sign a card
> or petition and it's done.  If they don't want a long drawn-out
expensive
> election, rife with intimidation and legal battles, they don't
have to have
> to do it that way.
>
>
>
> The bill would also strengthen penalties on employers who coerce
their
> employees or otherwise violate their right to join a union.  And it
> establishes a mediation and arbitration if workers and their
employer cannot
> agree on a first contract.  But the main provision is establishing
the much
> beleaguered right to unionization in the first place, and
employers are
> already fighting tooth and nail to block this bill.  That says
something,
> right there.
>
>
>
> AWARE can help by endorsing this campaign.  It costs no money,
just a
> decision.  And I'll bring postcards for anyone who'd like to sign
one.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Ricky
>
>
>
>
>
> "Only those who do nothing make no mistakes." - Peter Kropotkin



--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Ambassador Pickering on Iran Talks and Multinational Enrichment
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kGZFrFxVg8A



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081026/4a20270a/attachment.htm