Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

The PRO Act Is Not Just a Union Handout—It's an Assault on the Freedom of Association Itself


Muda69

Recommended Posts

https://mises.org/wire/pro-act-not-just-union-handout-its-assault-freedom-association-itself

Quote

On February 4, 2021, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Like many names in Washington, this one is an Orwellian misnomer that does the exact opposite of what it claims to be doing. If passed, the bill, which is basically a union wish list, would radically transform the nature of the labor market in the US with numerous sweeping and heavy-handed changes. Andy Levin (MI-09), a sponsor of the bill, doesn’t bother to hide its envy-driven prounion goals; in his press release, he whined about income inequality and stated that “The PRO Act would reverse years of attacks on unions and restore fairness to the economy by strengthening the federal laws that protect workers’ right to join a union and bargain for higher wages and better benefits.”

The bill’s cheerleaders may talk about how it will give workers the ability to choose to exercise their rights to organize at work, but much like the mafia, this bill will ensure that the choice to unionize is one that workers can’t refuse. In a sweeping assault on federalism, it would overturn right-to-work laws in twenty-seven states that allow workers at unionized workplaces to opt out of being in the union and paying dues. If your workplace forms a union, you will have to be in it.

And, not to worry, the PRO Act will ensure that almost every vote to organize will come out in the union’s favor, one way or another. The labor law firm SmithAmundesen reports that the bill would expand the kinds of workers who can unionize and would give the union the power to determine how votes will take place. In the event that the union loses and complains about the company, it can use a method called “card check” where instead of having a secret ballot, unionizers can intimidate and harass employees into signing a card saying they want the union to represent them. Under current labor rules, if a majority of employees have signed such a card, then the workplace can either accept the union or have the federal government organize a secret-ballot election. Under the new rules, after the union claims to have a majority of signatures, unionization is automatic, with no vote.

SmithAmundesen also reports that the law would prevent an employer from withdrawing recognition of the union, even if the employer has proof that employees no longer desire the union’s representation, and also allows unions to demand that companies agree to not do business with nonunion companies.

What is portrayed as an opportunity for choice is really a method of railroading as many workers as possible into paying union dues (which can then be funneled to political campaigns) one way or another.

While these moves by big labor are certainly annoying and egregious (I have written previously about my own time spent in a unionized workplace) they are nothing surprising. What is truly the most outrageous aspect of this proposal is that it institutes California’s “ABC test,” which forces businesses to reclassify independent contractors as employees if they fail to meet three criteria. According to the California government:

Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions:

  • The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
  • The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  • The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

There have already been mountains of coverage of the disastrous results of this policy. Former Mises summer fellow Peter St. Onge has written about how the scheme is likely to result in lower wages for contractors turned employees. But that only applies to those fortunate enough to keep working. Writing at Reason, Billy Binion has documented numerous instances of freelancers in California being basically blacklisted from numerous companies located outside the state because of the new bureaucratic hurdles that came with them. Uber and Lyft simply defied the law and said they would ignore it, which they did until a popular referendum added app-based drivers to the list of exceptions to the rule.

On its face, the ABC test is merely another way to corral employees into dues-paying unions. However, its unseen effects are even more insidious and will lead to more state power and centralization. The federal government seeks to obliterate and subsume all sources of power outside itself, as it has already done with the lower levels of state authority in our federalist system, and the nonstate mediating institutions of social power such as the family and community. The freedom of association, whether in one’s private, public, or economic life, is an essential freedom upon which many other freedoms rest; therefore, its further degradation is extremely alarming.

As someone who has made a living writing as an independent contractor for the past few years, I can attest that it is not always the most secure and easiest way to work in the world, but I find that this insecurity is worth it, because in exchange I have a great deal of independence and freedom. I do not have any bosses to answer to, I don’t have any HR departments to listen to, and I can work whenever I want. I am very free to organize my life how I desire.

Those in power have good reason to detest this freedom. As government bureaucracy continues to metastasize throughout the economy, like a malignant cancer, increasingly more employees fall under its authority and control. Unlike regular employees, independent contractors do not have to sit in HR seminars to be force-fed woke social justice garbage or engage in struggle sessions to cleanse themselves of their gender and ethnic privilege. By forcing formerly independent workers together, they become easier to control and manipulate.

Not only do those in power benefit from centralization, but it provides numerous opportunities to provide patronage to those seeking reprieve from the law (and therefore allows them to derive even more power). The California law is stuffed full of exceptions and carve outs for different professions and industries. Uber and Lyft were able to orchestrate a successful referendum campaign to have their business model added to the list. But tough luck to freelancers in industries that don’t have multiple multibillion-dollar tech giants backing them or an army of lobbyists at the ready.

The relevant part of the current draft of the federal bill (section 101) doesn’t even mention any exceptions at all. No doubt that if the bill seems to have a chance of passing, lobbyists will be pouring into politicians’ offices to bow and scrape in order to protect their industries and secure exceptions and carve outs. You can’t blame businesses for trying to defend themselves in this way, but such a situation flies in the face of the idea that the law is for everyone and further feeds the culture of corruption and cronyism.

The PRO Act may claim that it is all about freedom and choice, but in the end, it will only result in less choice, less freedom, and more government control.

Agreed.  This is horrendous legislation.  I urge all those who truly believe in personal freedom and the freedom of association to contact their elected representatives  and voice your opposition to this bill.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

Again, you say this like it's a bad thing. 

Because it is.  Unless you hate the concept of Freedom of Association, which apparently you do.

8 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

You say this like it's a bad thing. 

Because it is. Why the hell have a vote to organize if the rules/laws are now slanted enough that it will pass every time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2021 at 4:51 AM, Muda69 said:

Because it is. Why the hell have a vote to organize if the rules/laws are now slanted enough that it will pass every time?

If a majority of employees have already signed up to be members, an additional round of voting is a waste of time. 

On 2/26/2021 at 4:51 AM, Muda69 said:

Unless you hate the concept of Freedom of Association, which apparently you do.

I despise people who reap the benefits of union membership without paying for the associated costs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/25/2021 at 10:49 AM, Muda69 said:

 unionizers can intimidate and harass employees into signing a card saying they want the union to represent them

...as opposed to allowing the employers to harass them.

Eons ago, I worked at a Jap shop in Shelbyville called PKUSA, which was ran by a bunch of slave drivers. Eventually the employees attempted to organize a union, and management installed a series of deceitful posters about the dangers of unions. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

If a majority of employees have already signed up to be members, an additional round of voting is a waste of time. 

So you support the tyranny of the majority and not the individual's freedom of association.  Got it.  You are a socialist to the core, Dante.

20 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

I despise people who reap the benefits of union membership without paying for the associated costs. 

And those who CHOOSE not be a member of a labor union should not receive those "benefits", whatever the hell they are exactly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

...as opposed to allowing the employers to harass them.

Eons ago, I worked at a Jap shop in Shelbyville called PKUSA, which was ran by a bunch of slave drivers. Eventually the employees attempted to organize a union, and management installed a series of deceitful posters about the dangers of unions. 

Hmm,  now you are a racist in addition to a socialist.  

And why should a employer, regardless of their ownership,  welcome a labor union into their facility?  

"slave drivers", Lol.   Just admit you couldn't handle some hard work and be done with it.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And why should a employer, regardless of their ownership,  welcome a labor union into their facility?  

... why should we allow foreign companies to own land in the USA?

Why should we allow factories to employ people outside of unions, at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

... why should we allow foreign companies to own land in the USA?

Wow Dante, didn't know you to be such a protectionist.  And where in the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of various states such ownership disallowed?

7 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Why should we allow factories to employ people outside of unions, at all?

Again, what about Freedom Of Association do you not understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And those who CHOOSE not be a member of a labor union should not receive those "benefits", whatever the hell they are exactly.

Attached is the handbook from a non-union charter school, and the link is to the master contract to a unionized school district. This should serve as a warning to all of the scab teachers about what they face when they don't join the union- a handbook, not a contract. 

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/600240/NCCTA_2019-22_Master_Contract.pdf

2018-19.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Attached is the handbook from a non-union charter school, and the link is to the master contract to a unionized school district. This should serve as a warning to all of the scab teachers about what they face when they don't join the union- a handbook, not a contract. 

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/600240/NCCTA_2019-22_Master_Contract.pdf

2018-19.pdf 990.42 kB · 0 downloads

From the PDF:

Quote

The primary mission of NCCTA, Nye County Classroom Teachers Association, is to advocate the professional rights and economic security of its members, while also serving as the prominent voice of this negotiated contract.

Hmm, nothing altruistic about "championing or caring about the actual education of the children they serve"  in that primary mission statement.  Tells me all I need to know about public sector teacher's unions, and why they should all be abolished.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

From the PDF:

Hmm, nothing altruistic about "championing or caring about the actual education of the children they serve"  in that primary mission statement.  Tells me all I need to know about public sector teacher's unions, and why they should all be abolished.

 

Then teach at Democracy Prep. Oh wait, they are being sued, so they won’t last .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

Then teach at Democracy Prep. Oh wait, they are being sued, so they won’t last .

That's right.  I guess you can't sue a government school for failing to educate your child.  That is always, always, the fault of the parent.  Right Dante?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2021 at 10:53 AM, DanteEstonia said:

I despise people who reap the benefits of union membership without paying for the associated costs. 

And I despise people whose goal is to infringe on others’ freedom of speech and association for their own benefit... which is exactly the effect of a mandatory dues policy where some of those dues are used for lobbying, campaign contributions, etc. That’s why the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional state laws that require public employees to pay union dues. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_rules_mandatory_union_dues_violate_free_speech_rights_of_publ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

That’s why the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional state laws that require public employees to pay union dues.

When the law is changed to exclude scabs from contracts, then the playing field will be leveled. 

Seriously, If I had my way, every scab teacher would get a handbook like DPAC's. 

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

From your unabashed love of public sector teacher's unions and overall disdain for non-government education.

So, you are putting words in my mouth again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

When the law is changed to exclude scabs from contracts, then the playing field will be leveled. 

But aren't you in effect wanting scabs to automatically be including in labor contracts, based on your previous comments that all employees should be in a union?

 

11 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

So, you are putting words in my mouth again?

No, just calling it as I read it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

But aren't you in effect wanting scabs to automatically be including in labor contracts, based on your previous comments that all employees should be in a union?

No, and you are putting words in my mouth again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said:

No, and you are putting words in my mouth again. 

*sigh*  Sonny, you need to go back and read what you previously typed.

 

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DanteEstonia said:

...so you can then answer the question at hand?

Well, you didn’t ask the question of me, but I’ll bite.

Compensation for work done is a contract. Provided there’s agreement on terms, workers should be compensated according to that contract. For example, if I stop at a light and a guy cleans my windows, without me asking him to, he’s performed labor, but is not entitled to compensation, since there was no prior agreement.

To refine your cross examination technique, you need to make sure your questions are answered either “yes” or “no,” if you want to keep firm control of the adverse witness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...