Dangerous union

Unions in America are not what they used to be.\nThis past Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 241-185 to modify the National Labor Relations Act. The crux of this modification is a measure that would allow employees to bypass a secret ballot election and unionize simply by gathering “check cards” with signatures from a majority of employees. \nFor those not as well-versed in labor studies as I, allow me to explain how this is a major change.\nCurrently, when employees wish to form a union, they must get a majority to sign a petition and present it to their employer. If the employers so desire, they can simply accept the union as long as a majority sign the check cards and 30 percent agree to bypass the secret ballot election.\nIf not, the employer can pursue the above-mentioned secret ballot election, the date of which is determined by the National Labor Relations Board. Unions make the argument that this buys the employer time to thwart unionization through a variety of strategies that may or may not be legal.\nCan anyone blame an employer?\nThis is a matter of simple economic survival. If one needs any reason to oppose this bill, simply look what happened to the airline and automotive industry. Their downfall is likely due to the union agreements they were strong-armed into signing. Taking away the secret ballot election will mean more industries will become vulnerable to strong-arm union tactics.\nThis bill, however, is not the only win for the labor lobby in the new Democratic Congress.\nOne added provision to the Senate’s latest Homeland Security bill would allow airport screeners to unionize. This essentially means that screeners would have collective bargaining rights and whistle-blower protections. “Whistle-blower protections” is usually code for preventing disciplinary action against employees who leak confidential or privileged information.\nNow, regardless of your position on unions in general, I think it is difficult to argue that employees essential to national security should be allowed to unionize. Imagine having contentious negotiations at a time of national crisis. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was absolutely correct when he said that unionization would mean having to negotiate every time an emergency deployment or reorganization needs to occur.\nThat’s not a matter of saving profits folks. That’s a matter of saving lives.\nIn general I tend to agree with Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s take on unions. He felt, at least at his company, they served no purpose other than divisiveness. Unions put management on one side, workers on the other and themselves in the middle as a separate business. \nPerhaps at one time unions were needed and did some good. But the fact of the matter is that now they serve only themselves. As long as companies take care of employees, there is no need for unions.\nI suppose I can understand that unions, like any other political organization, need membership and headlines and political victories to survive.\nMessing with our national security to achieve these ends, however, is unacceptable.