Comments on: Disorganizing Labour

By: Crooked Timber » » Republicans and Labour

Crooked Timber » » Republicans and Labour — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:42:41 +0000

[...] Republicans and Labour Posted by Henry There was a bit of an argument in my recent post about Republican intentions and labour reform; Sebastian Holsclaw, among ot [...]

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:15:35 +0000

Well, if you think the information I provide in my tax returns is insufficient, then propose measures to remedy the problem. (I seem to recall that in Canada, I used to have to supply more original documents with my tax returns than I do in the US, so it’s not out of the question that more needs to be done here in that regard.)

Keep in mind, though, that Henry didn’t give a single reason for believing that the new proposed transparency requirements for unions were either onerous or unnecessary—apart from the fact that the current administration is generally anti-union. Fortunately, some of the comments did touch on the pertinent issue of what information, exactly, unions are currently required to reveal, and whether or not it suffices. That discussion was interesting, if somewhat technical—and certainly more enlightening than making a strained analogy to my personal tax returns.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:03:41 +0000

I don’t see how the law you propose enhances transparency—I already provide the IRS with copious documentation supporting my tax returns.

Which is exactly what the labor unions are saying. If I’m not supposed to believe them, why should I believe you?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:08:33 +0000

Abb1, I don’t see how the law you propose enhances transparency—I already provide the IRS with copious documentation supporting my tax returns. It sounds like what you’re advocating is using government resources to intensify oversight of my personal finances. If you think this is a good and important use of the taxpayers’ money, go ahead and advocate it. I’m guessing it won’t get far, but you never know….

By: McGroarty

McGroarty — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:35:43 +0000

Hogan wrote: “Would you like to compare the staff resources of the average CFO of a publicly held company to the staff resources of the average local union treasurer? Not even in the same solar system.”

Hogan observes two men helping a third into the emergency room. “Boy, sure is lucky the guy in the middle is the one who got cut! I can see he’s the one wearing the bandages!”

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:13:45 +0000

Well, then, may I suggest a legislation that requires thorough yearly auditing tax returns of one Dan Simon? Transparency is important and I don’t see any downsides of this legislation. On its own merits.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:45:41 +0000

I didn’t notice anyone making any such argument (although I may have missed it). What I did notice was that lots of commenters took issue with Henry’s assertion that administration’s alleged nefarious motives were by themselves enough to brand the new regulations as a terrible thing. Like me, the commenters were generally of the opinion that the administration’s motives were quite irrelevant, and that the regulations could, and should, be judged on their own merits.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:53:36 +0000

Dan – absolutely. I agree.

It’s just that a couple of people here insisted that it’s a sincere effort on the part of the Republicans to clean-up the unions. I can’t imagine why they say this silly thing.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:16:14 +0000

Now, I suggest that you may want to view union as just a fact of life….Unfair? Perhaps, but this is how the system works….

As far as transparency goes….obviously this is just a political action….

Abb1, you might want to view political actions as just a fact of life. Unfair? Perhaps, but this is how the system works….

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:17:12 +0000

Brett,
IIRC, in some states you’re required to join the NRA if you want to buy a firearm, so there is some similarity here.

I don’t think any union has a policy to key cars, so this seems to be a purely law-enforcement matter.

Now, I suggest that you may want to view union as just a fact of life. When you take a job you’ll have a boss. Why? This is how workplaces are organized and for a good reason. And the same is true about the unions.

Life is full of contradictions. You take a job -> you need a car to get there -> you’re coerced to buy insurance -> insurance company supports politicians you don’t like. Unfair? Perhaps, but this is how the system works, and it is full of contradictions.

As far as transparency goes, I would concede that the government may have a legitimate (but limited) role in regulating unions, but is there really any evidence that unions are less transparent than other public entities? If not, then obviously this is just a political action, which I am sure it is.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 00:17:19 +0000

“I don’t understand why advocacy or any particulars of it would be objectionable.”

We can’t really know if it is objectionable when they get to hide the particulars.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:34:22 +0000

Ok, first off, I wasn’t automatically made a member of the NRA when I took my last job. If I refuse to join the NRA, I am not required to pay partial dues to the NRA, based on the NRA’s assessment of how much it’s services are worth. And the last time I decided not to take part in an NRA activity, nobody keyed my car.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:06:42 +0000

I don’t understand why advocacy or any particulars of it would be objectionable. Every human being has multiple roles in the society, multiple contradictory interests. For example, you may be simultaniously a union member, NRA member and a member of, say, the Libertarian party. The union will defend your interests as an employee by sponsoring Democratic politicians, the NRA will promote your gun-owning persona by sponsoring Republicans and you’ll vote for Harry Browne (or whoever it is now). I don’t see much of a problem here. It’s a complex world.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:22:21 +0000

“You have to get past the bs to see what it is they’re actually trying to do, which is prevent unions from engaging in issues advocacy.”

No, it is to prevent unions from engaging in issues advocacy while hiding the particulars of the advocacy from union members. If revealing it causes the advocacy to cease, I don’t see the reason to believe that there was a compelling case that the unions were really representing the union members in the first place.

By: cm

cm — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 18:23:47 +0000

Ah, transparency and accountability. Just like “healthy forests” and “clear skies” – everyone likes cute kittens and apple pie.

You have to get past the bs to see what it is they’re actually trying to do, which is prevent unions from engaging in issues advocacy. I’ll support that just as soon as the Bush administration passes a law preventing corporations from engaging in issues advocacy, I mean supports ‘transparency and accountability’ for themselves.