Card Check Is Not the Solution for Pension Mismanagement
At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, the union promise of jobs and better wages is deeply alluring -- but their mechanism to securing them, so-called "card check," is fundamentally flawed. The basic premise of card check, the focal point of the Employee Free Choice Act before Congress, is that once labor leaders get a majority of workers to endorse a union, then a union is certified.
With union membership falling to less than 10 percent of the private sector workforce, "card check" has become the Holy Grail for organized labor. Unfortunately, in doing so they are trampling over the rights of workers to a secret ballot when deciding whether to form a union. The secret ballot was a critical part of union reform in the 1970s to clean up corruption and worker coercion.
Union leader James P. Hoffa's goal to return to the bad old days of his father's reign would be laughable if it didn't threaten to devastate the American economy. Take the high-tech sector for example. It's the most vibrant and well-paid sector in the United States. On average, high-tech workers received raises of 4.6 percent last year.
The high-tech sector is also largely non-union. Imposing the union model through the coercive tactics such as card check on the technology industry would be disastrous.
But the damaging effects go well beyond the high-tech sector. It would have a devastating impact on workers from all industries by affecting retirement plans.
A detailed analysis last year by the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, found that union-negotiated retirement plans were not as sound as those provided by private companies to non-union employees. Nearly all of the major plans were behind on payments, and overall, the pension plans of union officers were better funded than those of rank-and-file workers.
The Hudson study, written by a former chief economist at the Department of Labor, went on to find that 21 of the largest multi-employer union pension funds had only 67.7 percent of the reserves needed to meet their obligations, seven were in critical condition, and not one was fully funded. In this group of 21 are some the most vocal, deep-pocketed supporters of card check, including the SEIU and Unite Here.
Perhaps that explains the urgency of imposing card check on U.S. workers. It would be a way for union officials to tap a new funding source to meet federal requirements that they fully fund pension funds by 2011. A fresh crop of unionized employers would subsidize past union pension plan mismanagement and, at the same time, fund the demand for defined benefits from the latest union members.
Today more than 10 million workers and retirees benefit from 1,500 different multi-employer pension plans. Unionized companies pay into these funds as part of collective bargaining agreements.
Is the true union motivation behind card check to get a host of new employers into the pension pool with the cash to correct the problems of past union mismanagement? If so, the legislation, as it is written, allows union pension fund managers to carry on their current course without any additional government oversight or reasons for increased prudence.
If this is the union strategy, politicians and the workers whose companies may be unionized don't deserve to be fooled. And these concerns alone reinforce why workers must retain their right to a private ballot to decide unionization - union organizers intimidating workers to sign cards or petitions are unlikely to disclose that they have teetering pension plans.
If card check is such a good idea, union leaders should be asked to testify before Congress about the financial condition of their pension plans and the impact that card check would have on shoring them up. Union leaders may not favor transparency, but certainly Congress must.
Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents more than 2,200 U.S. high-tech companies.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Every pension fund in America is underfunded. Go and check. Even the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the federal agency that guarantees pensions is underfunded. Y'know, the agency that takes care of underfunded pension funds when the companies that created them don't want them anymore? Like the airlines, when they dumped all their underfunded pension funds in their last round of bankruptcy. Though they kept the *fully-funded* pension funds for their executives.. only the rank-and-file lost their pensions.
Losing the secret ballot? C'mon, that's been discredited already. They can do secret ballots or card checks, only the workers decide which one instead of management.
I'm an IT worker. I would dearly love to be unionized. You say IT workers got a 4.6% raise last year? Maybe so.. But the other two people in my department got laid off. My workload has tripled, and I'm working 80 hour work-weeks. I would happily trade my "raise" for a union that would let me have free time.. So would all of the IT people I know, who are *all* in the same boat.
Gary, is your pension fully-funded? Pretty much every CEO and "executive" has a pension, probably fully-funded. I don't have a pension. I don't even have 401k matching by my company. I've got jack-squat other than what I've put into a 401k. I'd be far happier with even an underfunded pension plan!
Tell me again how much better off I am without a union.
In other news the foxes want in the chicken koops. The foxes are afraid someone might eat the chickens.
***Tap tap tap*** Is this thing on? Gary are you there?
I remember when Reagan let Sony dump color tv's for $100 less than they were worth.
A lot of US producers went out ofd business the Reagan collected his 4 MILLION in speaking gigs in Japan right after that.
Bloomberg's lies to NYC FireFighters;
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/616.html
If pension funds are underfunded it is because the employers are behind on payments to those funds. Whether or not the employees are unionized is irrelevant.
Upon reading many of the opponents "arguments" against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), I can honestly only conclude that the main reason why they come out against EFCA is because it will work in allowing workers the freedom to chose to have a voice on the job. That is why folks like Shapiro are against EFCA, not because of anything to do with "pension mismanagement." Please.
But why such hysteria against EFCA? Saying that EFCA will result in the "... trampling over the rights of workers to a secret ballot when deciding whether to form a union," is simply not true. There is nothing in EFCA that calls for the elimination of the secret ballot. Nothing. What's more, the National Labor Realtions Act has provisions in it that protects workers from having their rights trampled over by either the employer or the union, irregardless of EFCA.
In sum, the truth about EFCA really does not matter to opponents like Shapiro. Why? Because, as it has been said in the past, if you are going to lie about something, make sure it is a BIG lie (elimination of the secret ballot, etc...), because the bigger the lie, the better the chance that more people will believe it.
The idea behind card check is to make it possible for people to unionize in this country without losing their jobs before the process can be completed.
If business in this country cared anything about their own workers, or had any sense of right and wrong, they would simply pay better wages. But even those "tinkle-down" tax cuts have done nothing over the last few years to keep the average worker's salary growing more than the inflation rate.
As to the "secret ballot," malarky, no one ever mandated that we have a "secret ballot" for everything decided by a group of people. In the caucus states, they don't even use a "secret ballot" to determine the winner of their presidential primaries.
Right now, business in this country is finding that its unlimited group of consumers don't want to consume as much anymore. Years of low wages, bare-bones health insurance plans, and other worker-UNFRIENDLY policies encouraged people to use credit cards and the value of their houses in order to have nice things. Now that using credit is no longer viable for many people, spending has gone down - maybe never to return to its former levels.
If business wants to get out of this mess, they are going to have to learn to share the pie. Shareholders should not get a 10% profit every year when the workers get only 3-5%. Unions will allow workers to claiim their fair share.
Amen!!
Good enough for me. If you are against it. I'm for it!
LOL...Sometimes, the choice really is that simple.
+ Fritziscool I'm a Fan of Fritziscool I'm a fan of this user permalink
"Where exactly do all those good wages and benefits come from. Employers have to take money out of their working capital to give to employees
It's called "investment"
- Do you blame the conveyors for the cost of getting product from one part of the plant to the next?
- Do you use cheap concrete to poor the foundation in your headquarters?
The problem with the corporate empire is they always demand something for nothing. Capitalists are leeches, a drag on this planet. Now, they have to give back.
They need to quit whining, man-up and contribute to society instead of just taking for once.
I cant' wait to organize IT companies. They need it the most.
Let me get this straight, - Chamber of Commerce and CEOs think Card Check is bad.
OK, got it.
NEXT!!!
The C of C... DEFENDER of the working people, CHAMPION of preserving workers' "fundamental democratic rights".... BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAAAAA!!!
The current unionization process resembles a despotism rather than a democracy. Which is, of course, what the anti-lobby would like to see unchanged---Their permanent "home-field advantage".
The focus of the anti-EFCA effort was that it "strips" workers of their rights. Tthat the business community chose this strategy was because it was a political winner to beat back a bill they didn't like for reasons OTHER THAN the "sanctity" of the secret ballot and workers rights. Now that it appears that there is to be compromise on this issue, the anti-lobby has shifted their argument to the arbitratration and mediation clause, the section of this bill that's got their collective shorts in a twist, and a much tougher issue to "frame" in their favor.
Here's how it looks to the public: First the anti-EFCA forces staked their public position on how unfair to workers it would be to eliminate the secret ballot. Now that they are probably going to get that in a compromise they are saying - "the arbitratration process will kill jobs". It looks exactly like the "bad faith" that labor has claimed management brings to the table---always shifting the goal posts whenever labor gets within striking distance of a touchdown.
To de-certify a union you can use card check already. It is hypocritical not to allow it to certify a union.
This report was supported in part by funding from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had no part in the formulation of the study or the presentation of the results. The views expressed in the paper are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of any other party. The author takes responsibility for all errors.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAH!!!!! YOU FUNNEEEE!!! Non-partisan, STOP! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAH!!!!!
I suppose your next "non-partisan" report might read thusly:
A report on which fast food restaurants are safe to eat at, and which are death traps.
Written by Mr. Ronald McDonald and partially funded by the McDonalds Corporation
PLEASE.
"A detailed analysis last year by the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan think tank..."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!
The Hudson Institute is a non-profit think tank headquartered in Washington D.C.
While describing itself as "non-partisan" and preferring to portray itself as independently "contrarian" rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."
Hudson has traditionally had a strong focus on U.S. domestic policies such as national defense, education, crime, immigration, welfare, pesticides and biotechnology. However, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks it has substantially boosted its focus on international issues such as the Middle East, Latin America and Islam.
YOU FUNNEH!!!
The primary focus of a union is to keep themselves in business. I have seen where they have offered everything to employees to unionize then when it happends wortkers are sorely dissapointed. Where exactly do all those good wages and benefits come from. Employers have to take money out of their working capital to give to employees. There are more employees than employers it isn't fare that good people get laid off and have to be unemployed. There is something to "Social Darwinism". As unfair as it is some people are better at surviving at work than others.
....then you'd better worry about your own survival in the NEW, collective bargaining reality, Tiger!
Can you make the shift from back-stabbing, hoarding and kissing-ass - to - playing nice with the rest of the kids under the watchful umbrella of organized labor?
There is something to "Social Darwinism" but snitches and scabs are not as good at surviving than some others... :))
Excellent column. We have one of the worst recessions ever. The Obama Administration and virtually all Democrats in the House and Senate now want to inflict on the business world a change in labor law that will make it painless for unions to organize. Unions cause negativity, favor slackers, burden employers with endless meetings and play a role in substandard productivity and quality. Why would so many politicians favor something that will harm the economy further? Because labor unions use most of their dues to fund politicians. It is as simple as that. Follow the money trail. Many who comment on EFCA stike out at the CEO's. Yes, let's punish them so that their company's fail. If we really care about the 92.4% of all workers not in a union, defeat this legislation.
Absurd, unreliable anti-union propaganda is what it is, and you are a clueless water-carrier....
"Unions cause negativity, favor slackers, burden employers with endless meetings and play a role in substandard productivity and quality."
No other statement you could make could illustrate so well that you have no clue as to what you speak of--you clearly illustrate that you care NOTHING for workers, and everything for profit over quality and basic human respect for people who actual WORK for a living.
I have been, in the past, a member of five different unions. I know from experience that everything you are saying about unions is untrue. People like you have been waging war on jobs and wages in this country for thirty years. People like me just keep working longer and doing with less. Well, time goes by and things change. Guess who's coming to dinner Dave.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
