EFCA
 

The Chamber of Commerce hates them some unions.

To be fair, they're right to treat it like a big deal, because it's a Big Deal.

I went to google news looking for updates on this and so far have found several million op-eds from the WSJ and similar decrying the 'misnamed' Employee Free Choice Act, which I guess is true in that it's totally taking away the freedom of unionizing employees to be, you know, not free from employer abuse and union-busting.

I agree with the second article in that increasing unionisation is the most important issue in America today.
Mostly because unions not only protect worker rights they are immensly effective political tools and are generally effective in helping preventing marginalisation.
It's particularly a big issue in times of downturn.

I think before we try to increase unionization we should try to do something about corruption in unionization. Unions only work if they defend all their members equally, and though I haven't been in a lot of unions, the ones I have been in didn't defend me at all as I was on the bottom rung... even though once you've gone up a couple steps you don't need the union to protect you as much--as once you've been promoted a time or two you're either middle management or at least well trained enough that replacing you is generally more expensive to the company. I suffered greater employer abuse at the union shops I've worked at than the non-union ones. And I've worked at Wal-mart.

They sure did enjoy taking my paycheck, though.

Right now unions seem to present more of a competitive edge for workers than an actual advantage for unionized workers. Non-union shops still have to provide benefits roughly equivalent to union ones in order to gain and retain workers. I suppose that may change with the economic downturn and the shortage of jobs, but for the time being it still stands true.

So there's no truth behind the ol' "I'ms gonna bust a slug in your kneecaps if you don't vote for the union" myth?

Honest question because that's all I've been hearing.

It was quite common in the 1920's and 1930's when a lot of the unions were run by organised crime to pretty much use the unions as a money-making tool and force workers to do what they wanted. Both in the states and Europe.

"“You’ve got to go up and tell them what will happen [if the bill passes], that no one is going to add a single job in the United States,” Chamber president Thomas Donahue told the assembled. “Will I put a job here where it’ll get unionized in an illegal way? No, I’ll put it somewhere else.”"

Well, that'll make your company popular. Unions should start organizing boycotts of the products of the companies who act like this. Companies should realize that the same people who work for them are the people who buy their products, and if they aren't getting paid because you shipped their jobs overseas, they aren't going to buy your products.

In the current Economic dark waters, that has got to be the worse attitude to have. "Don't do it, or we'll punish everyone and everything with our own stupidity even more then we possibly already have! Rawr!"

Yeah, I really want to buy your product then.

I think the question you should ask is how likely that question is to be asked when the word "don't" is removed.

For all that employers have lots and lots of means short of violence which they'v used and continue to use to intimidate people out of starting unions - threatening their jobs, withholding pay, using their control of the workplace to evangelize against worker organization, etc. - that doesn't mean that they haven't also been happy to use violence as well to prevent workers from organizing.

I think the major thing I would point out here is that the weakness of unions in the US hasn't exactly created a shortage of companies moving their manufacturing operations overseas.

Can't really speak to your particular experiences but I would say generally this seems at least in part due to, again, the weakness of unions in the U.S.; a lot of the time they just don't have the bargaining power to push through anything like an effective deal. I'd also note that differentiated pay/benefit agreements are one of the number-one goals for union-busting negotiators specifically because of its effectiveness in driving a wedge between older and newer union membership.

As an interesting historical point, there was a factory owner at or around the turn of the last century that hired mercenaries to essentially gun down striking union workers on their picket line outside his factory. He claimed he was just defending his property from invading trespassers. Can't seem to remember the name of the guy or where it happened. It was somewhere in the Northeast, I think. It's been a while since I was in that class. So management using violence against unions and workers isn't without precedent.