Left out of this talk is the groundwork being laid by the next administration and union-dependent members of Congress to weaken government oversight of unions and the corruption therein. From the WSJ: "The AFL-CIO's formal "recommendations" to the Obama team call for the realignment of "the allocation of budgetary resources" from OLMS to other Labor agencies. The Secretary should "temporarily stay all financial reporting regulations that have not gone into effect," and "revise or rescind the onerous and unreasonable new requirements," such as the LM-2 and T-1 reporting forms. The explicit goal is to "restore the Department of Labor to its mission and role of advocating for, protecting and advancing the interests of workers." In other words, while transparency is fine for business, unions are demanding a pass for themselves." And Mickey Kaus laid it out nicely recently: "At some GM plants, distinct job categories evolved for each spot on the assembly line (e.g., "headlining installer"). In Japanese auto plants, where they spend their time building cars instead of creating job categories, there is only one nonsupervisory job classification: "production."" The unions are scared senseless that foreign auto companies in the south are paying their

This is a very important discussion. The impact of Wal-Mart ownership and management policies on Wal-Mart workers, suppliers, locally owned businesses, and tax payers is horrendous. Labor law must be reformed. On a related subject, I recently read Philippa Strum's excellent biography of Louis Brandeis. He was a capitalist--leaving a fortune of about $2M upon his death; yet time and time again he brilliantly addressed the hugely unfair disparity between labor and capital. Why don't I hear more from progressive thinkers about Brandeis's legacy and how it should be applied now?

The middle class has continued unabated to be downsized for the past 30 years. It has been the subject of many books and at least 3 by Kevin Phillips. It doesn't seem to matter what party is in control of Congress or the Presidency but the well paying jobs just keep disappearing. That said I don't consider it as a party issue but a national one. Dr. Reich tipped his hand little bit here by pointing out that probably most of the jobs that will be created with President Obama's stimulous package would be going to the well trained and educated populous and not to the people who want to break out of the minimum wage bracket. He also stresssed that there is not a ladder for many who would want to solid vocational education. An excellent discussion on a topic that is often overlooked. John

These two are passionate, but what is the point of watching two guys with pretty much identical views stroke each other? It's boring.

The UAW isn't responsible for Detroit's troubles. Neither is management. NAFTA & GATT are responsible. This is what happens when you lower trade barriers with low-wage Goliaths like China, India, Mexico, and Brazil. Paul Samuelson knew this perfectly well. In fact he proved the theorem that explains it: "Factor Price Equalization" is what he called the process. How then explain Samuelson's remarks to the American public which he delivered in the East Room of the White House on the Eve of the great NAFTA vote in Congress? He said, and I paraphrase, "History shows no example of wages going up when tariffs are raised." Can anyone spot the disingeniousness of this remark? So why did Samuelson say this, and why did no other trade economists in America -- I will not name names -- point out the truth, namely, that an abundance of low-wage workers is precisely the comparative advantage that poor countries enjoy when they trade with the West? For American workers to be "competitive" with workers in China means to be willing to work at a much lower wages. And for American auto companies to be "competitive" in the world market means finding workers who will work at those wages. It's

Quoting Salt: These two are passionate, but what is the point of watching two guys with pretty much identical views stroke each other? It's boring.

There are trade-offs. If two people have fundamentally different views, those views tend not to be developed to much over the course of the talk.

I am pro-union, my mother is a union member, I believe management often engages in unethical behavior to stop union organizing--but I am against card check. It seems like, in response to all the unfair things management has on its side, labor is saying "we want our own unfair thing on our side!" Why doesn't labor focus on laws that limit unfair management practices, instead of trying to subvert the secret ballot? It would be better for both sides to be acting fairly than for both to be acting unfairly.

Quoting gwlaw99: That was probably the absolute worst argument I have heard against secret ballots.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'm with your emotion. I would be grateful if someone could make the labor union's case to me concerning card check. I am all for people being able to unionize more easily, but I have yet to hear a good argument against secret ballots. Obviously, there's a realpolitik aspect to labor's point of view here -- if you know who hasn't gotten behind the effort to unionize at a given location, you know where to focus your efforts of persuasion. And it also seems likely that given the instinctive fear of change inherent in human nature, combined with the FUD that management will always spread in response to a movement to unionize, that leaving things up to a secret ballot makes it harder for labor to win on a vote to unionize. Still, though, I'd like to hear a better response to those who hold up secret balloting as sacrosanct, since as a general principle, I agree with this view.

Ohmigod, My feelings about the dismal science have been reconfirmed. Excuse me gang but I didn't hear any ideas either original or encouraging from either Andy or Robert. Following the advice of these two would seem just to be a step backwards to a scene that would reset us up for today's woeful economic pass. Do we really want to try a re-run of the 90's. Limited vision post-modern flatland dead-endism. And you may ask me how I really feel.

Quoting markdavenport: Do we really want to try a re-run of the 90's.

Longest peacetime growth of the economy? A budget surplus by the end? Low unemployment? Sure! What we wouldn't want is a repeat of someone like W coming along at the end and taking advantage of everyone's complacency.

Good get, bhtv!
Here is the future of organized labor: in a deflationary environment, unions will have zero ability to raise their nominal wages. Bargaining for benefits will be hindered by their high cost and the perception (justified or not) that universal healthcare is right around the corner. Public sympathy for the UAW is even lower than I would have thought (and I've been in a GM plant): the fact is many more people have jobs and retirements that are at-risk than before, and are highly resistant to help fund the high wages, insane work rules, job banks, and retirement packages auto workers enjoy. This can't be good sign for card check or anything where the voters have a say. The leadership of Miss Congeniality here, and his casual use of the concept of patriotism during this conversation, will not be an asset to the workers he represents. Now unless a President Obama is willing to go to the mat for organized labor (it's hard to tell whether he's ready to go to the mat for anything), and I'm ready to call it what it is: dead. Stick a fork in it. Bob: on the

Quoting bjkeefe: Longest peacetime growth of the economy? A budget surplus by the end? Low unemployment? Sure!

What we wouldn't want is a repeat of someone like W coming along at the end and taking advantage of everyone's complacency.

Yah bjkeefe, that was the la-la land that produced W. What's the point of a see that only brings a saw? We need to find some game other than teeter-totter.

Quoting markdavenport: Yah bjkeefe, that was the la-la land that produced W. What's the point of a see that only brings a saw? We need to find some game other than teeter-totter.

Possibly you're right. I would like to think we'd have learned some lesson, though.

For those with the aversion, I'm going to enumerate points because I don't know where my thoughts are going yet. Just cover your left eye and pretend the paragraph starts an inch to the left. 1. Clunker: at times I think this debate just comes down to those who embrace change and those afraid of it. My father started working on the line at Westinghouse, moved to middle management, and now works for another small firm in management. He still builds things - to my mother's delight but he jettisoned the anti-new attitude decades ago. I recall when he ranted about catalytic converters, but now he can't wait to buy an electric car. And too, every time someone brings up the good 'ol days, I ask, how many people died of some now curable disease that year. 2. Card Check: I'm with Jyminee. Comparing companies with dictatorships is a bit rich. 3. It's not just unions and companies that disagree. Unions disagree with each other, especially across sectors. There isn't a one-size-fits-all plan. 4. EFCA is just an Orwellian title. But, stripped of card check, I think the important reforms are the arbitration and civil penalties sections. With these card check is redundant. 5. I also have no problem with

I would be grateful if someone could make the labor union's case to me concerning card check. I am all for people being able to unionize more easily, but I have yet to hear a good argument against secret ballots.

As I understand "card check," it gives workers the option of forming a union either through secret ballot or petition cards. It's called the Free Choice Act because it expands routes to unionization. As the law stands now, card check is possible, but management can veto a petition card process, forcing a special election in order to overturn the organizing effort. Anti-labor critics are claiming that the legislation posits secret ballot vs. non-secret ballot, but that is NOT the case. The two routes to organizing are secret ballot (a normal vote) or a cumulative sign-up process. The conservative critique is bogus. No one is opposed to secret ballots. Organizers, however, also want the route of petition to be respected.

I understood Reich's account of how companies treat employees during organizing and contract negotiations. But, EFCA would already criminalize such practices. Card check would allow the union to form with only 30% support. But, settling for 30% would sound too craven.

Chinese labor is no longer cheap, but it is less productive than advanced countries' labor. It didn't take long for "cheap" labor in ROK or Taiwan to unionize and become too expensive, and China is already fast on that mark. The problem is, that as labor becomes experienced and more productive, less labor is needed to produce the same product with better technology. More capital and different markets are needed to buy better products produced by the same labor. Subsidies and tariffs only stymie the growth of those markets. Also, as labor becomes more productive with better capital, fewer workers have to kill or bore themselves with labor-intensive work and families don't need large families to squeeze out a marginal existence on low wages. Consumers have more time and money to buy the fruits of other countries' improving labor. And, where are those buyers for American goods? In the grave. They're the people in the developing world America and EU are helping to impoverish and kill with their cotton, and other agricultural subsidies, along with dictators', like Mugabe, help, disease, and natural disasters,. The supply of workers and consumers should be growing, but just the smallest of legal subsidies

Quoting Wonderment: As I understand "card check," ...

Thanks. That helps somewhat.

Card check would allow the union to form with only 30% support.

I could be wrong, but I think it's a majority. According to the Wikipedia article:

Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, introduced in the United States Congress in 2005 and again in 2007, the NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if a majority of employees have authorized that representation via card check, without requiring a secret ballot election

[emphasis added by me]

Next time on bloggingheads, George Bush and Dick Cheney discuss how well the war on terror is going. What's the point of having two pro big government and pro union people go over their talking points?

This conversation reminded a lot of the hubris of the neo-cons. An absolute faith in policy and government action in solving the world problems. It's just a matter of implementing labor reform, you see...and to stop those mean greedy CEOs in management. Also of course the goal is to improve American manufacturing, it's gotta be American. The "demand", people need to buy more American stuff...oh but we need to do something for the environment too. Talk about confused and emotional fellows. All-caring about the middle-class and the unionized workers... Just a few observations. It's not clear to me that management cares one way or the other if the work force is unionized or not. In my experience your bargaining power goes down when you're trying to advance everybody at once. More generally, how moral is it to give privileges to unionized workers at the expense of non-unionized ones and the people who are looking for a job? Is there any moral superiority claim that can be made? I don't see one.

I stand corrected. It's still unnecessary with the other two provisions.

Quoting gwlaw99:
How are Toyota and Toyota workers doing. Well, they don't have to worry about losing their jobs because their company is going bankrupt.

You were saying...

You know, a lot of the liberal thinkers on this site make me wonder if perhaps the left isn't so bad, that it has been reformed and chastened to the point where it is a viable alternative for conservatives who have been disaffected with their side. But then I see a diavlog like this and I think, "whoa, hold up, if this is what the centrists in the democratic party are saying, then the Fatal Conceit is alive and well. No thanks." I guess that is the point of having these diavlogs with no ideological conflict; since people tend to be agreeable and find common ground in diavlogs whether there is ideological disagreement or not, an episode like this let us see the other things people will agree on in the right company.

Quoting bjkeefe: Possibly you're right. I would like to think we'd have learned some lesson, though.

Here I agree, bjkeefe. Of course we have learned something from both decades. But shall we go from thesis to antithesis and then to synthesis about this? Neither the one nor the other but rather something new, beyond labor vs. management which is such a 20th century conflict. Left on its own, either faction has been rather equally shortsighted and of very limited perspective. I mean, hey, what's an economy for if not for all those aspects of us that aren't "economic."
Cheers, Mark

Is it just me, or does this look like a diavlog between Werner Herzog and Steven Spielberg?

It's still unnecessary with the other two provisions.

I don't really have a strong philosophical position on this question, but I can tell you from organizing experience and from being able to see through the rhetoric, that this has nothing to do with "democracy" and everything to do with labor v. management - a zero-sum game (?) we've been playing since the emancipation of the slaves and continuing to child labor laws, retirement benefits, the 8-hour day, maternity/paternity leave and so on. If you tend to side with the owners on these questions, you will be anti-petition card and if you tend to side with the workers, you will be pro. Unions have their own problems. They can be corrupt, ineffectual, wimpy and obstructionist. But I think the analogy to Congress that Andy drew is a decent one. Congress sucks and often makes us worse off than we'd be if we just let one smart guy make the decisions. But no one suggests abolishing Congress and going back to a paternalistic "pro-management" monarchy.

Quoting Wonderment: ... labor v. management - a zero-sum game (?) ...

Just for the record, I don't think this is a zero-sum game. When labor does better, the overall economy does better. I grant that sometimes unions can at times be corrupt or too powerful or their negotiating stances counterproductive, but much of the gains achieved by labor throughout history have yielded benefits for just about everybody, management included.

Quoting jimM47: You know, a lot of the liberal thinkers on this site make me wonder if perhaps the left isn't so bad, that it has been reformed and chastened to the point where it is a viable alternative for conservatives who have been disaffected with their side.

Progress!

I agree. Certainly the major reforms of the system -- 40-hour-work week, for example -- have benefited everyone. "Pro-business" types will say that of course they too want things like child labor banned, but when it comes to demands that don't yet outrage everyone's conscience, they will resist. If we had a workforce with national health insurance, universal pre-school education, and most of all, a living wage, then we might not need unions. But we don't; so we do.

Quoting Wonderment: I agree. Certainly the major reforms of the system -- 40-hour-work week, for example -- have benefited everyone.

"Pro-business" types will say that of course they too want things like child labor banned ...

Ah, yes, they do now. They have had to be compelled to come around to this way of thinking, though.

... , but when it comes to demands that don't yet outrage everyone's conscience, they will resist.

Correct. Which is why while I agree 90% with this ...

If we had a workforce with national health insurance, universal pre-school education, and most of all, a living wage, then we might not need unions. But we don't; so we do.

... but don't agree completely. If we did have these things, that would be huge. But I think we'll always need to have a need for the ability to act collectively, if for no other reason than the thinking behind "speak softly but carry a big stick." There will always remain the possibility that management will act capriciously, especially in cases of an individual boss and an individual worker, and it is for everyone's good that there be a threat that all workers would leave if one of them were mistreated at work or

Quoting markdavenport: Here I agree, bjkeefe. Of course we have learned something from both decades. But shall we go from thesis to antithesis and then to synthesis about this? Neither the one nor the other but rather something new, beyond labor vs. management which is such a 20th century conflict. Left on its own, either faction has been rather equally shortsighted and of very limited perspective. I mean, hey, what's an economy for if not for all those aspects of us that aren't "economic."
Cheers, Mark

For one thing, it seems like you're changing the subject. But no matter. I don't agree that labor vs. management is a "20th century conflict." I do grant that many gains have been made, codified into law, and indeed, seem ingrained into our very thinking. Virtually no one thinks child labor or ridiculously hazardous work conditions are acceptable any longer. But given a sufficiently management-friendly government, there are lots of places where labor's gains get chipped away. For example, the notion of mandatory overtime pay has been sidestepped in many places where employees are defined to be "exempt" and paid a straight salary, while de facto being required to work more than 40 hours/week. Workplace safety remains an ongoing concern, too. While we

Quoting bjkeefe: For one thing, it seems like you're changing the subject. But no matter.

I don't agree that labor vs. management is a "20th century conflict." I do grant that many gains have been made, codified into law, and indeed, seem ingrained into our very thinking. Virtually no one thinks child labor or ridiculously hazardous work conditions are acceptable any longer. But given a sufficiently management-friendly government, there are lots of places where labor's gains get chipped away. For example, the notion of mandatory overtime pay has been sidestepped in many places where employees are defined to be "exempt" and paid a straight salary, while de facto being required to work more than 40 hours/week. Workplace safety remains an ongoing concern, too. While we no longer think of a regular stream of workers falling into the meat grinder at a sausage factory, say, we now have a better understanding of things like risks of long-term exposure to chemicals and repetitive strain injuries. Management, generally speaking, will not make adjustments in such areas without being forced to do so.

Wo! That's a strong statement. You have no faith that management would want to compete for the best work-force and hence try

Quoting Wonderment: I don't really have a strong philosophical position on this question, but I can tell you from organizing experience and from being able to see through the rhetoric, that this has nothing to do with "democracy" and everything to do with labor v. management - a zero-sum game (?) we've been playing since the emancipation of the slaves and continuing to child labor laws, retirement benefits, the 8-hour day, maternity/paternity leave and so on.

I think you are missing a huge difference between slaves and workers in a free-market: the ability to walk away. Imposing unions and anti-slave-owner legislation makes a lot of sense because it lowers the value of a slave for the slave-owner. However, in a free-market, pro-union legislation increases the price of a worker and thus makes employers cut-back, either by hiring less people or by being less attentive to other workers demands. This is basic supply-and-demand logic. So emancipating the slaves is really an example of a freed market. By the way, why the need to take sides between the supply (the workers) and the demand (the employers)? Why not simply be pro-freeing-markets?

Boy, that was quite a mutual backrub! Andy Stern argues that health care employment will go up after reform. I don't think so. The US health care system devours 14% of GDP and by most measures underperforms governmentally managed health care systems that cost 1/3 or 1/2 as much. One of the best arguments for health care reform is that we need to make our system more efficient and cut costs. That probably doesn't mean fewer aides or nurses - the sort of employees most likely to join the SEIU or other unions - but tons of people will lose their jobs. People who are paid to deny claims or obstruct care or process excessively complicated paperwork will lose their jobs because their jobs are artifacts of a ridiculaously wasteful system. Health care reform is a good thing, but the better it is the MORE jobs lost. Less cost means less payroll.

This is a dialogue between two micro-brained morons who would put us into another great depression if they were powerful enough. This conversation is text-book demagoguery from start to finish. The card-check is an absolute atrocity. It is pure marxist- ends justify the means thinking. Hopefully the Supreme Court will send it do the very center of Hell where it belongs. We know the present congress and senate will go for this crap

This is a dialogue between two micro-brained morons who would put us into another great depression if they were powerful enough.

Yes! It's certainly a great blessing not only to America but to the entire world that we had a genius leading the country for the past eight years. If only we hadn't amended the Constitution to limit presidents to two terms! The Bush team would never let anything bad happen to our economy. Why do they even let Democrats run for office?

Unions protect their own to the detriment of working people in general. These two idiots are incapable of seeing this because of their laborite induced tunnel vision. In their world, the union is always right- therefore anything the union wants is good and anything the union doesn't want is bad. Any strike is justified and all corporations are completely evil. Such people have not only drunk the Kool-Aid but have refused to consume anything else.

Quoting sharkdog: Unions protect their own to the detriment of working people in general. These two idiots are incapable of seeing this because of their laborite induced tunnel vision. In their world, the union is always right- therefore anything the union wants is good and anything the union doesn't want is bad. Any strike is justified and all corporations are completely evil. Such people have not only drunk the Kool-Aid but have refused to consume anything else.

Your stridency and cartoon-like impression of labor unions suggests you're pretty well sodden yourself.

I have been in the workforce for around 35 years. I have been in a union twice and hope to never be in another one. In my experience, union loyalists are, for the most part, greedy morons who never look at the big picture; but only at their next paycheck. I also have a friend who would have been beaten by four thugs with baseball bats if it hadn't of been for the fortunate passing by of a police car. These scumbags where about to jump on him, and a friend, because he said the wrong thing at a union meeting. He had stated that the demands they were proposing would break the company. Since he was the accountant; he certainly was qualified to speak on such matters. I have also known three different people who were told by their formans to slow down and not work so hard because there was a danger of them getting too much done and upping the quota. The phrase union people like to use is "save some of the work for tommorow." From these and other experiances, from what I have read, from listening to union represnetatives

The answer to Sec Reich's question to Mr. Stern about what to do to stimulate the economy should have included the important role of EFCA in any stimulus package, and that no public money for training should be provided to companies or states b/c unions (with their employers) provide that in the private sector via apprenticeships and collective bargaining. Why use union members’ tax money to train folks for their non-union competition?
To answer Sec Reich's question regarding a response to the "perceived" loss of a secret ballot is that unions must finance an expose on the business community for lying about the secret ballot facts. Fact is, EFCA leaves untouched the secret ballot and only 30 percent of employees may still demand and get a NLRB secret ballot election under EFCA, as they may under current law. Under current law, employers and employees may choose to forgo that process, EFCA continues that but currently the employer can force an election. This is what EFCA changes, i.e., it removes the employer's right to force a secret ballot by obstanately refusing to recognize a majority of the employees' choice of a bargaining representative (a