On the other hand, I’m also someone who thinks about these things and tries to look at both sides. The argument against card check is that union officials can become coercive. I’ve met a few union organizers and none have come off this way, but I’ve also met a lot workers who are so pro-union, it’s like a religion. With these guys, it’s all or nothing, and the union is never to be questioned.

The EFCA makes it easier to organize and that is a good thing. Is card check the right way to make it easier to organize? Maybe not, but when I think about what would have happened to me if I had even been overheard talking about organizing at one of my non-union jobs, I shudder. Have you ever heard the phrase, “you’ll never work in this town again”?

For me it comes down to who I might fear more, the shop steward or the boss, and guess what? It’s no contest. That’s where I came around to support EFCA.

Most of us worked as freelancers. We met all the qualifications to be considered employees, except that we were paid as contractors. That meant I had to pay city business taxes and twice the Social Security. It also meant I wasn’t entitled to worker’s comp or to unemployment. And if I wanted to organize, they didn’t have to fire me; all they had to do was never hire me again.

But back to card check. I was thinking of ways to make it better, and make it more politically feasible, and maybe the blogger would want to comment on a couple of ideas.

IDEA #1: Compromise on the number of cards needed and require the union to get 60%. Sure, in the best possible world, 50% plus one is the democratic majority, but we all know, whether we admit it or not, that some who sign the cards will vote against the union, even in the absence of employer coercion. I agree that the 75% number you quote sounds apocryphal, so let’s go with 60%. That’s a little more work for organizers, but it’s a lot more assurance that a majority favors the union.

IDEA #2: Require 50% plus 1 cards, but make them anonymous. Yes, it seems a bit sticky, but it can be done. The cards go in a sealed envelope, the worker gets a number that matches the envelope, and it’s only opened by an independent election administrator.

I admit that there’s a lot of research out there that I haven’t read, but I haven’t heard anyone talking about compromises on card check. I can see why unions might prefer their way over my ideas, but I think these are two ways to take away the most compelling arguments from the corporate right-wing.

Overall, there seems to be an assumption that union membership is a good thing for all workers. Most non-union workers, especially white collar workers (which are now the majority of the economy), want nothing to do with a union. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 9% of non-union workers would be interested in joining a union.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/just_9_of_non_union_workers_want_to_join_union

Even if we take the view that these people have been fed lies by corporations, etc, I’m not convinced that more unionization leads to better economic conditions for ALL workers. Yes, those that join the union, assuming not everyone joins the union in their job sector, will be better off. However, some empirical studies seem to suggest that higher unionization rates tend to lead to lower weighted averages of total compensation when you factor in for all workers, non union and union alike. Therefore, in many cases unionization leads higher wages for unionized workers, but when you factor job cuts due to higher wages and lower wages for those not in the union, you end up with a situation that is not necessarily good for all workers. Even if all jobs were unionized, you’d have a much higher unemployment rate than you have now (think 20% +). In this situation, those lucky enough to have these unionized jobs would be great of course, but not necessarily everyone else.

With that said, I think a lot of this depends on industry and job area. I think everyone can agree that the threat of a union is a good thing, in that it can keep employers honest. However, I think the best situation for most involved is just the threat. Sure, some workers with limited mobility, such as hospitality workers (who are growing in rates of unionization) would probably be better off with unionization. However, most professionals (think nurses, college plus government employees) are definitely better off not being in a union. Some governments take it to an extreme. (Some governmental entities even have unionized lawyers!) When jobs become unionized like this, people with advanced degrees are treated like dime a dozen commodities and tenure is the only way to advance. When people are mobile and specialized, we all benefit by creating incentives for job flexibility and growth based on merit. Unions tend to work against this because the bottom 20% of performers have just as many votes as the top 20% of performers.