Well, it seems that a bunch of people are all a-twitter about news that Wal-Mart doesn’t like the disgustingly=misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” (EFCA) and actually paid attention to campaign promises — a lot of Democrats are backing this measure, which — among other things — will strip workers of the right to decide whether or not to unionize by secret ballot.
Wal-Mart’s logic is simple: they believe that the bill will make it easier for unions to organize their workers. They believe that bringing in unions would increase their labor costs. And they also believe that if their labor costs go up, they will not just “suck it up” but rather would cut costs to make up the difference — probably by cutting back on hiring.
So Wal-Mart figured they’d tell their management types their opinion, and their rough plans. And they might have hinted that those employees would be doing themselves a favor if they took some kind of action to defeat the EFCA.
Fortunately, Wal-Mart has no way of enforcing these recommendations, or even making sure that their employees vote the way Wal-Mart wants them to vote. That’s because we voters still have the right to vote in secret, to express our preferences in the sanctity of the voting booth, and no one can call us to account for not voting the way they would prefer. This is one thing that separates Americans in general and workers if the EFCA becomes law.
As I said, this has a lot of people all in a dither, accusing Wal-Mart of trying to influence the election.
In the meantime, another group with a hefty interest in EFCA is spending literally millions of dollars to get it passed. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is, by far, the biggest player in the world of “527” interest groups, by several million dollars.
But that isn’t enough. They also have a Political Action Committee, that’s begging for money.
But that still isn’t enough. The SEIU has deicded that its members need to “contribute” more money to the PAC in addition to the Union (which gives a lot to its PAC already). So they’ve demanded a “contribution” from each and every local equal to $6.00 per member. And if they don’t pony up, they will be assessed a fine equal to 150% of whatever they fall short.
Gee, and here I thought “contributions” to political action committees were supposed to be strictly voluntary.
Remember how this works: when an employer tells its employees who it is planning to react to proposed legislation, that is BAD and CORRUPT and COERCIVE and EVIL and TAMPERING WITH THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. But when a union demands — under threats of fines and, eventually, expulsion from the uion — that its members fund not only the union, but the union’s political action committee, that’s… um….
Dang. I dunno what the unions and their apologists are calling it, because they’re not talking about it. It’s like it doesn’t exist. It’s the elephant (or, rather, the donkey) in the room, that nobody wants to talk about.
Anyway, if they won’t talk about it, I guess I’ll try to give it a justification. Let’s see… how about “the unions are merely acting in the workers’ best interests, helping them resist their evil employers’ intimidation and simplifying the process of unionizing, and they’re doing so in a courageous fashion, not letting such things as the workers’ own wishes and the law get in the way.”
Nah. Too candid, no honest. It’d never fly.