Democrats against Democracy

Here's an excerpt from a letter which appeared in the Washington Post today regarding the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act under consideration in Congress:

The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating labor laws. Union sympathizers are routinely threatened or even fired, and they have little effective recourse under the law. Even when workers overcome this pressure and vote for a union, they are unable to obtain contracts one-third of the time due to management resistance.

To remedy this situation, the Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act. This act would accomplish three things: It would give workers the choice of using majority sign-up-- a simple, established procedure in which workers sign cards to indicate their support for a union – or staging an NLRB election; it triples damages for employers who fire union supporters or break other labor laws; and it creates a process to ensure that newly unionized employees have a fair shot at obtaining a first contract by calling for arbitration after 120 days of unsuccessful bargaining

Now, generally speaking, I try to think the best of my political opponents, since I tend to think almost all political ideas have some merit. But not this. Let's look at a few of the "best" parts of the letter.

The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization

Management campaigning "fiercely" against unionization? The horror! To be fair, the letter writers then go on to complain that some of the campaigning violates the law. One can fairly ask, though, the extent we, as an allegedly free society, want to regulate the speech employers are allowed.

But what's truly crazy is the idea that signing cards rather than elections is going to lead to a more accurate representation of employee preferences. Look, if anyone truly believes that, I have a counter proposal: Why not allow employers to ban unions after 50%+1 sign cards saying they don't want unions? If card check is a legitimate method to get at preferences, this clearly is acceptable. So how about it: Let's have a system where your boss calls you into his office and asks you to sign the union-banning card. And, gosh, I do think employee evaluation season is coming up . . .

Better yet, if we're going to follow the principle that signing cards represents preferences, and that's it's perfectly OK if only one side has this privilege, why not allow it in the United States in general? From now on, I propose that once 50%+1 of registered voters can be persuaded to sign a card, the Republican candidate for president becomes the winner. After all, it saves us the time and expense of acrimonious elections.

Now, as a skeptic of democracy, I don't necessarily think weird alternatives to elections are always wrong. But at least I have the balls to admit it. Would that the leftwing economists here, fed up with the annoyance of democracy leading to policies they don't like and proposing to do away with the roadblock of elections, would show the same courage.

Share this

But when 50% +/- 1 is within the statistical margin of error????

Closed shops are illegal. Union membership is not required in union shop but the scab is required to contribute an equivalent to the union dues to a charity.

Several important very close elections in the last few years have been determined by the 2nd recount. It should be obvious to any educated person that in any election of (say) 10,000 people or more where the difference in the first count is only dozen or so votes that the results of any recount will be smaller than the margin or error.

If the vote was paper ballots, then a final count could be made by physically pairing ballots and dropping each pair, one at a time, into a burn barrel. The last remaining ballot would be the winner. With an election of several million people some candidates might not live long enough to see the result.

Bottom line, there can not be an honest, secret ballot. Any secret ballot of several hundred thousands can be fixed.

I propose to end secret ballots - there is no constitutional requirement for them. Every county voter list should be posted on the web in a down loadable form. Every vote and voter should be posted for every election. Every person could then check for dead neighbors voting and make his own tally of the votes.

Actual republican new

Actual republican new yorkers will love this idea.