So says Michael Barone, in regard to the tens of millions of dollars in union dues spent by union leaders to push for what amounts to coerced unionization.

The unions are blaming this on selfish big business. The real problem is that it's hard to defend a law that effectively abolishes the secret ballot. When nobody's looking and it's not for real, politicians may vote that way. But not when it's for keeps. Moreover, as General Motors and Chrysler spiral toward bankruptcy, it's not apparent that adversarial unionism is healthy for the economy. It's not clear that imposing federal arbitration on the private sector is a recipe for economic growth. Certainly it's not a recipe for innovation or flexibility at a time when businesses need them more than ever.

Union sympathizers are now talking about fallback positions. But it's not clear that a bill with minor changes that does not effectively abolish the secret ballot and impose federal arbitration will produce the vast increase in unionization that union leaders seek. There's not much polling showing that vast numbers of private sector workers yearn for union representation.

Let’s boil it down to its essence – the card check process, when brought to the attention of the American public, was pretty hard to defend. After all, when your fall-back argument is that the secret ballot isn’t really necessary in a free society, you are not going to get much sympathy in this country. And with the massive expenditure of dues as a part of the union effort to eliminate the secret ballot being available as an example of how unions spend the dues of their members, I can’t imagine that there will be a change in interest in unionization any time soon.

Posted by: Greg at 07:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.