Disorganizing Labour

Your article mentions two things that the administration is fighting:
more detailed financial statements that increase accountability and transparency, and
resistance to scrapping secret ballots.

What is wrong with either of these?

Steve

Just another instance of the old saying: be careful what you wish for it, you may get it. In the 80s/90s many labor unions backed off support from Democratic candidates because they were not conservative enough. A few even supported Republicans. While I understand the thinking that went into those decisions, I hope they are now satisfied with the long-term consequences. Because there is a lot more of it coming down the pike before Bush and Cheney are out of office.

And if they are succeeded by Jeb, or worse yet Cheney, well then….

Cranky

I second what Steve wrote. If you have to resort to feverish conspiracy theories on how an objectively good piece of legislation might be abused because, goddammit, those Republican are just eeeeevil, then its clear you have no interest in arguing the merits of the law.

What makes this situation different from your chamber of commerce analogy is that there are no businesses that are forced to join the C of C to legally operate. On the other hand, in many states union memebership is required to work in unionized industries, and that requirement is backed by the force of law.

While it is certainly true that on economic issues unions (generally) support the interests of workers over owners, it is also true that many union members vote on issues other than their own naked economic interest – because they are, like, human beings you know. Some auto workers are devout Catholics, for instance, and refuse to vote for and support pro-choice politicians. That may piss you and Tom Frank off, but those workers are big boys and girls and have every right to hold their opinions. But in Michigan if you want to work in the auto industry you have to join the union. Otherwise – no livelihood for you and your family. It seems entirely humane then not to require them to fund political activiites that run counter to their most deeply held values. But the laws that protect such workers can’t be enforced if the labor unions operate under less scrutiny than any other economic actor.

Well argued, sd. I trust, then, that you cast an equally gimlet eye on corporate management’s political contributions. Management, after all, may spend shareholders’ money to fund political activities that run counter to some shareholders’ most deeply held values. Now, you might take the traditional tack of counselling such shareholders to follow the ‘Wall Street Rule’. If you do so, however, to be consistent you had better counsel your anti-choice auto worker to find a different job.

Mrs. Tilton,
If you are going to compare the two, then surely you would desire that both corporations and unions have something close to the same level of transparency?

But in a huge number of states (in fact, all of them) unions may not spend dues money on political activity. In a very large number of states many union members may opt to pay only the share of dues that goes directly to negotiating and servicing contracts (from which those members benefit).

Unions already file detailed financial reports with the IRS and the Department of Labor. What the administration is doing is making those reports more complex, more detailed, more onerous, and more difficult for union officers to file correctly without expensive legal and financial help. Trivial gain in transparency; tremendous logistical and monetary burden on unions, and more opportunities to punish them for technical violations of reporting requirements.

sd and Sebastian have already articulated quite nicely some of the larger issues here.

I’ll second Steve’s comment. What is wrong with transparency and accountability? I would expect the academics at CT to undertake a detailed and incisive analysis of the legislation before declaring a proposed law to be undesirable. Isn’t that what academics are supposed to do?

SD,
That second paragraph….I can’t believe you actually went and said it. You rawk.

“power-consolidating effects of organized labor” That is the arguement in a nutshell.

I can’t believe that we are hear on CT having an arguement about transparency for powerful bodies. We live in a Democracy where everything concerning politics should be transparent. Yet here we are, the same old party line polemics.

Seems like blocking transparency of unions is a naked grab at power by hook or crook.

Seems like blocking transparency of unions is a naked grab at power by hook or crook.

Seems like denying that transparency of unions already exists is a naked and deliberate denial of provable fact.

I have to agree with sd on the stock/job distinction. Changing ownership in widely traded shares-easy. Changing your career-not nearly as easy. Add in the marginal financial effect of changing stock for rich people vs. the effect of being forced to change careers for much poorer people and your analogy is looking rahter cold-blooded.

Furthermore corporate disclosure is already much more transparent than union disclosure. Further still you aren’t required to buy a particular stock to invest in a general financial area, while in order to work in many blue-collar fields you are legally forced to join a union.

What about transparency for gun ownership and ammunitions expenses? Why the law does not establish that gun owner must present every year a list of the weapons then own, those they’ve sold and to whom, those they’ve bought and from whom, the ammunitions they had at the start of the year, those they used, those that turned bad, and any additional buying. Etc.

Let’s remember transparency is good!
DSW

Henry, if I understand your position, you must be opposed any regulation or oversight of unions, at least in circumstances where a union might suggest that that regulation or oversight prevents them from maximizing their political power. I suppose that means no audit requirement and no fiduciary duty as well.

Why on earth should the rest of us find that position attractive?

I support the right to organize, but I also support the right of workers to hold their union accountable, and that second right can’t be made meaningful without some degree of transparency. Current law provides a limited amount, and the proposed regulations would move the bar, a bit.

Your argument, unfortunately, talks about the administration’s supposed motivations and not about where the bar should be, and the logic of your post (if not of your position) is that there shouldn’t be a bar at all. I’d rather discuss what’s really wrong with what the administration has proposed, and whether it will really have the awful effects you suggest. We can discuss what it would mean if these reforms really did have the effects you suggest–would that mean that unions are currently violating their member’s rights, and that transparency has revealed that? Or is it just that compliance costs are eating up the entire budget? Aren’t those cases different?

I support the right to organize, but I also support the right of workers to hold their union accountable, and that second right can’t be made meaningful without some degree of transparency. Current law provides a limited amount, and the proposed regulations would move the bar, a bit.

Is the pressure for this rule change coming from rank-and-file union members?

“As Brad DeLong keeps on saying about social security, the time for the debate over policy options is when we have an administration that is actually interested in the underlying policy questions, rather than in pushing through changes for narrowly partisan reasons.”

This is actually a good point, yet the problem beneath it is somewhat self-contradictory. Modern Democratic administrations have no interest in reforming the huge problems with unions because unions and the Democratic Party feed off of each other for power. It is a fact of democratic government that institutions are most likely to be reformed by people who don’t like them, or only when people who like them are forced to reform them by people who don’t like them. You admit that reforms are necessary but you don’t like the political outcome of these reforms. You are unwilling to engage the detail of these (apparently good) reforms because you don’t like the administration’s motives.

I don’t care about the motives. This proposal would have been good under Carter or Clinton, it is good now. Workers should not be forced to join a union, forced to have union dues grabbed from their paycheck and also forced to allow the union to support a party they hate. The union-member already is allowed to have the political portion returned to him if he doesn’t like it. But without transparency he can’t ask for the money back because it is difficult to track the money.

Your complaint seems to be that unions won’t be able to support the Democratic Party as much if its members (many forced to be members by law) find out how much money goes to the Democratic Party.

That just suggests that unions support the Democratic Party far more than their membership would want.

Forgive me if I don’t see the injustice in reducing union contributions to the Democratic Party based on the desires of union members. The bad effect you worry about is a correction to more democratic norms. Please forgive me for not being so worried about the fact that hurts a party you like more than I do. But don’t play the cosmic justice game. You oppose this proposal for naked political reasons, so pretending that ‘naked political reasons’ is condemnation when talking about motivation seems a bit much.

Cranky, I would have no problem with investigating illegal campaigning with respect to churches. I don’t agree there was much illegal campaigning, but any you can find can certainly be dealt with.

Sebastian, Thomas:

Go to erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do and call up some LM-2s and LM-3s and then tell me how much more information you need about unions’ disbursements of dues money.

Also, I repeat: is the pressure for this rule change coming from rank-and-file union members? If not, why should we take the Bush administration’s word for it that this is what they really really want?

” ….call up some LM-2s and LM-3s and then tell me how much more information you need about unions’ disbursements of dues money.” – Hogan.
Unions are notoriously slow to file their LM-2/3s so “current” info is often several years out of date. And, for PAC and other expenditures, the forms usually refer to other filings instead of providing specific info. So, I need some timely substantive answers.

Henry, it sounds to me that your position isn’t based at all in the FT quote you originally cited. Which is good, because as I pointed out, it can’t do the work you’d have it do. In this case, the Bush administration has said it is motivated by concern for union workers, which concern may be real or feigned. Now, given that there is concern expressed, what should we do? We could take that for what it is, and, with perhaps a dose of skepticism, analyze and debate the merits of the policy. Or we can insist that the statement means something else entirely, and assume that our ideological opponents are acting in bad faith.

“The point I’m making is quite straightforward – unions that are aligned with their members’ interests, unions that aren’t aligned, the Bush administration dislikes them all.”

Even if Bush dislikes them all, transparency in spending can only hurt unions to the extent that they are spending in such a way as their members don’t like it. Unions resist such transparency because they are not acting in their members’ interests. They resist revealing that because they won’t be able to appropriate as many fees from people who disagree with them when it is revealed how much money is spent and how much disagreement is to be had.

And frankly I don’t see the slightest reason to protect unions in that.

“Given what we know about the administration, we have excellent reasons to believe that this policy is aimed at weakening unions, not at increasing accountability.”

The only reason that is an either/or proposition is because the unions are not closely accountable to their members, and they use that lack of accountability to support a political party that a huge percentage of their (forced) membership doesn’t like. And why the focus on ‘this’ administration. Republican administrations have been making similar proposals since Reagan. It is just they they were thwarted by the (in your terms) “nakedly politcal” moves of the Democratic Party at the time. The only difference between then and now is the Party in control of Congress. You frame this as a distrust of Republicans issue, but transparency is only going to be imposed on unions by Republicans–Democrats like the fact that union members can’t tell where unions are spending their money. Your argument is focused on not trusting this particular administration, but the effect of your argument is to make it practically impossible to ever allow for transparent interactions. You think it is dishonest to allow Republicans to do it and Democrats would never do it.

I don’t care what you think the motivation is. The idea is excellent and should be implemented. I suspect you don’t want to engage on the battleground of the actual concept because the concept is excellent but also works against your preferred political outcome–i.e. you are working with the same type of naked political interest that you are so quick to identify in the Bush administration.

John Q, you are using terms of art to be misleading, but I will assume it is unintentional. Strict ‘closed shops’ in the European sense were made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. ‘Union Shops’ where you are not required to join immediately upon hire, but are required after a set time working at a business are legal in 22 states including many of the larger states.

The agency fee issue is very difficult to enforce. The union isn’t forced to disclose its spending habits, so ensuring agency fees are spent only on permitted functions is difficult. It is also difficult for individual workers to go up against the might of the much larger union in fighting for the issue. Perhaps we need an anti-union union. :)

“Further, the “transparency” reforms some here are applauding go far beyond anything any ever dreamed of imposing on businesses. And unions are not even for-profit entities! Who has the money to pay for the sophisticated accounting software and accountants?”

The accounting is too tough excuse is unusually weak. First, I suspect you have no idea what is required of businesses if you would think for a second to compare the ridiculousness of Sarbanes-Oxley to what is being talked about here. Second, unions surely keep track internally of how much money they spend on political gaming. I can’t believe you are advocating the idea that tens of millions of dollars should be floating around with no accounting whatsoever. Surely they write checks? Surely they keep balance accounts. All you have to do is make some of the information more public.

I’m a member of the United Auto Workers. In fact, I’m the steward of my (small) shop. So, I can speak a bit to the causes and direct effects of this:

1. Our local has to buy specialized software, and training to use it, in order to follow the new requirements. Naturally, this affects the amount of money available for strike funds and the like.

2. Union members largely don’t care where their money is going (so long as they’re being represented well). We’ve never had large attendance at local meeting, even when we vote on which candidates to endorse or not endorse. I guess this isn’t much different than the rest of the US government, now that I think about it.

John Q, what methods do non-union workers have to ensure that the “agency fee” truly does only cover the costs of collective bargaining? What recourse do they have if they do find that the “agency fee” is being mis-spent?

There are several different avenues down which the dissenters may proceed. First, the National Labor Relations Board prosecutes these cases for free and with glee. (It enables them to show how not “one-sided” they allegedly are.) Second, the rugged individualist may sue the union for an accounting. Handily, there is a right-wing “legal aid” society set up just for this purpose: the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, funded heavily by the Walton family. Unlike the penalty for employers that blatantly fire pro-union workers (penalty is limited to no more than lost wages minus wages earned in the interim) the penalties for unions that might have charged too much to their rugged individualists include attorneys fees and, if I’m not mistaken, punitive damages. Our rugged-individualist friend will not have to pay one penny more than he needs to.

The rugged individualists’ co-workers — those who choose to be members of the union — have the same ability to affect spending choices as all citizens do in a democracy. If they don’t like how funds are being spent they can vote the bums out or they can publicize the expenditures and embarrass the leadership. Moreover, federal law itself restricts spending decisions by prescribing subject areas of lawful expenditures. Again, this law comes complete with the full panoply of remedies.

There’s been much discussion over transparency in union finances, but very little over changes to secret ballots for unions.

I support increased disclosure of union finances, but I think limiting secret ballots for union membership votes (as opposed to union board votes) is a bad idea. Secret ballots enable voters to vote their true wishes without fear of reprisal. A non-secret ballot membership vote is much more subject to intimidation and coercion from the group with power. If you’re a liberal, you worry about corporations getting their hands on member voting information; if you’re a conservative, you worry about corrupt/politicized union leadership getting their hands on member voting information.

“Consider unions: the Left is in favor of unions as if it’s 1920 again. Social change is probably not going to come through unions. The union movement in the U.S. has had its day. Thinking that you are going to bring about social change by supporting the teachers’ unions, the AFL, and the Teamsters and other labor aristocracies is way off base.”

— Marxist-gone-Santa-Fe-Institute economist Herbert Gintis in the new book, “The Changing Face of Economics.”

John Q, you are using terms of art to be misleading, but I will assume it is unintentional. Strict ‘closed shops’ in the European sense were made illegal by the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. ‘Union Shops’ where you are not required to join immediately upon hire, but are required after a set time working at a business are legal in 22 states including many of the larger states.

No, I’m correct. No employee in the United States must join a union. None. In non-“right to work” states an employee may elect to be a “Beck objector” and pay only a reduced fee to cover his or her share of the union’s costs of collective bargaining. (Typically about 75% of regular union dues.) This is a matter of federal law.

Moreover, in so-called “right to work” states you don’t have to contribute anything at all. Nada. Not a penny. It’s freerider nirvana. As a bonus, if there’s a strike you can join the union at the last minute and the union has to give you the same strike benefits as everyone else, even though you haven’t contributed a penny toward the strike fund.

Matt,

One way for Henry to meet the problem I’ve outlined above, is to successfully argue that academics are like union members in relevant ways such that the relationship of trust is properly grounded. He could then assert that union members should trust that his judgment of the proposed reforms is valid. But he has not undertaken this task, and I don’t think that your assertion that academics have the same interests as workers is enough. (Nor is it clear that Henry would allow that a simple correspondence of interest is enough to found trust; see his many papers on this.)

The fact that you see this detail as silly and insulting is indicative of your failure to understand Henry’s theory, above, in (a) and (b). For Henry, the relative (economic, cultural, political) positions of individuals determines the validity of their proposals. This is why Henry does not need to argue about the specificities of the reforms: he just needs to point to their provenance (Republican law-makers).

What he dislikes (as you can see by his uncivil response to me, above), is the reversal of this analysis: he is asking us to trust his academicians judgment (the validity of which is presumably established by the relationship between academic and union member) that the reforms are illegitimate becuase of their bad origin & intent. But why should we believe that his judgment is any more trustworthy? It is certainly permissible – indeed critical – to examine the foundation of the relationship between academic and union member that informs his judgment.

Note, also, that having argued for the interested nature of judgments, Henry cannot now argue that his position is disinterested. Such is the peril of post-modern criticism of epistemology.

The reason that those of us who want to see working people have stronger organizations are skeptical of the proposed Bush regulations is that, as several have pointed out, it’s just not credible that an adminstration as closely tied to corporate special interests as this one truly as the interests of working people at heart. Grover Norquist has boasted at length in his always charming manner about the opportunity to “end” unions.

Sebastian’s support the regulations is just as unconvincing. His hatred for unions is palpable. He can argue all he wants about accountability, but it’s not hard to figure out that the real goal is no more unions.

“No, I’m correct. No employee in the United States must join a union.”

Speaking as somebody who’s worked at a couple of union shops, no employee in the United States must refrain from having their tires slashed, either, or a brick thrown through their front window. Ever heard of the Enmons decision?

Those cards indicating that you want to be represented are signed, and aren’t the least bit secret. The union knows who’s holding out, and everybody is well aware that by not signing they risk consequences.

Incidentally, one thing that is being missed here is that unions are democratic bodies. If one isn’t happy with the political agenda of a specific union then the option is there to change it. If union members were overwhelmingly opposed to a political position taken by a union, then the possibility is there for change.

I’m not so naive as to believe that the democratic process always works perfectly, either in politics or in unions, but, however imperfectly, the possibility remains.

Complaining that a union member who disagrees with the political position of their union forfeits the benefits of collective bargaining is not a complaint at all. Collective bargaining only works because it is *collective*. To argue that individuals ought to retain all the benefits of a union with whom they are in profound disagreement is to argue against the whole concept of collective bargaining in the first place.

If one is a member of a union one abides by the democratic decisions made by that union. That’s part of the bargain that one strikes when one becomes part of a collective. You can push for change through the ordinary democratic union process but if instead you choose to leave of course you give up the benefits of collective strength.

That’s the whole *point* of a union — or any other democratically organised voluntary association.

We can argue about the details and of course unions are imperfect and can be and should be more responsive to their members but some of the commentators above seem to object to the idea that collective associations like unions ought to be involved in politics at all. That may be a substantive question, but it’s very much a different question.

Well, Henry, at least I got a quasi-responsive reply that time.

Let’s start with the obvious points. Post-modern critiques do not posit things in the world, so post-moderns are in no position to deny existence to material or immaterial things. They were reacting against a type of metaphysics in which this talk was supposed to make sense. If you understood their attacks on metaphysics, you would know this. Perhaps you are confusing the distinction between material & immaterial things with the distinction between (Kantian) things-in-themselves and things as they appear, or the world and appearance. For post-modernists, that distinction collapses; the world is all that remains. (What else would there be?) But since I made no distinction between material interests and interests generally, I’ll pass over it, noting only your confused understanding of post-modernist critiques of epistemology. (See Nietzsche, Will to Power, (Kaufman, ed.), or anything by Rorty)

You are now engaged in re-casting your argument. Let’s go back and check what you said earlier: “The kinds of reform that you’re talking about are only going to happen when either (a) the putative reformers are also those whom we want to benefit from the reform, or (b) the putative reformers have interests that are somehow aligned with those we want to benefit from the reform.”

I note that you did not make a distinction between material interests and general interests, so you are clearly adding a premise in your latest post – an indication that you’ve spotted a flaw in your argument. However, you do suggest that reforms are only legitimate if (a) there is an identity between reforms and beneficiaries, or (b) where there is an alignment of interests between reformers and beneficiaries. Note also that the evaluative criteria in (b) requires positive fulfillment: having no interest in giving bad advice is not good enough; there must be an alignment of interest.

In your post, above, you also point me to your work on trust, power and interest. I checked some of this interesting work, and it turns out that trust & interest, on your view, does indeed engage the concept knowledge & judgment (an so touches on epistemology). You’ve written: “[T]here comes a point where asymmetries [of power], are such that it is impossible for the more powerful actor to give credible commitments to the weaker. At this point, disparities of power prevent trust from arising, and make distrust the likely outcome. Where substantial asymmetries of power co-exist with uncertainty, it may be difficult for actors to be sure which side of this dividing line they are on.” (Farrell, p.25, “Trust, Distrust, Power”) Thus, for you, an evaluation of power relations is both prudent and necessary before credible judgment can be rendered.

Combining the above, I have simply extended your own analysis to your judgment that the reforms are illegitimate, by asking what about your position allows you to credibly assert to weaker, less powerful, less knowledgable actors to trust you. How do you fulfill (b)? What is it about a rich, privileged academic that founds the requisite relationship of trust between yourself and a union member? Is it that you have no material interest in giving them bad advice? I don’t either, so where does that leave us?

If you want to retreat from the field, be my guest. Your recent series of ad hominems just signals surrender.

Sebestian, you are right that attacking an opponent’s motivations is not a substitute for reasoned criticism. But I would say that the Bush Administration’s anti-labor record creates a strong prima facie case that the financial disclosure regulations are NOT in the interests of labor union members. The Bush Administration is hostile to unions, whether they are corrupt and secretive or open and clean. Moreover, the fact that labor reformers — a group that has a genuine interest in transparency — have been of the Bush proposal also strengthens the case against these disclosure rules.

While there is nothing wrong with improving financial transparency, there is evidence to
that these regulations will be a major financial burdens and drain away precious manpower.

Also, Henry, I think it’s important to note that strong unions are not just in the interest of union members but of non-union members as well. , since the threat of unionization forces businesses to raise wages to ward off organizing campaigns.

Sorry, my links didn’t work. (I really wish you’d bring back the Preview button)

On labor reformers against the Bush disclosure rules:
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/07/d.html

On the burden the rules will have on unions:
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001237.shtml#001237

Lol. Truly, Henry, that is the lamest response I have ever seen by an academic, inside and out of academia. This wouldn’t be funny in high school. You don’t have the courage or wit to substantively engage with the statements, so you link a silly web-joke and hope your confusion goes unnoticed. I take my previous statements back: you have no dignity to preserve. Good show.

The other posters are doing a much better job than I of shredding your poorly argued position, so I’ll leave them to it.

The best part is, a portion of my taxdollar goes, or did go, to fund Henry’s paycheque. I’m paying to get insulted, spat on and name-called by him. It’s like a Mony Python skit ; )

For all the good points that are being made here, I’m struck by a few things: none of us seem to have any specific info about the proposed regulations; and none of us seem to combine the scholarly, legal, and practical experience to say much of use about what the impact of the Bushies’ regs is likely to be.

I confess I’m a little thunderstruck by the contention that because it’s a Bushie thing, it’s time to circle the wagons. I have no trouble being suspicious — I’m suspicious of all new rules and regs. But leaping to judgments about the whether or not a set of proposed regulations is worthwhile or not based entirely on a dislike of the Bushies? It seems to express a conviction that good laws only come from good people, and that bad people only generate bad laws.

Which is childish, fairy-tale thinking, no? Why not view things more opportunitstically, and less in a partisan-cheerleader kind of way? If a proposed law or set of regulations seems likely to have a good impact, why not go for it, even if it’s being sponsored by people you dislike? If it’s a bad proposal, why not oppose it even if it’s coming from people you like? Are you out only for the Democrats or are you out for all of us more generally?

Setting up a good-vs-bad politicians thing seems … I dunno, a little naive. Isn’t it safer to assume that they’re all driven primarily by ego and power. Maybe not entirely but primarily? Yet sometimes something a little semi-decent or worthwhile gets proposed, and maybe even passed. I voted for Clinton but came to think he was a sociopath — yet I was pleased by some of the legislation he passed, and admired some of the ways he handled the economy. Yet I don’t for a moment think he did any of that … because he was a good person. I think he took the stances he did because they made him president, and because he wanted to get into that office and keep it.

Take two politicians. Both are mainly out for power and ego-stroking. One proposes a law that look awful. You denounce it. The other proposes a law that looks helpful. Do you oppose it because you dislike his motivations?

Me, I’ll focus on the results. And it seems to me that none of us have any idea what the results of these regulations is likely to be. Suspicion is good. But suspicion of all politicians and political moves is good.

Michael,
it’s not about politicians being sociopaths or good persons or about their ego. It’s all about interests these politicians represent, about their constituency.

Politician who is a humble well-meaning genius who happens to represent big business would be much worse for the unions than an ego-driven sociopath who represents workers.

Nothing good (or even semi-decent) for the unions can come out of this administration, that’s just as certain as the law of gravity.

“The power of unions” intimidates the Bush administration and the corporate class, despite the fact that fewer than 15% of the American labor force is represented by a collective bargaining unit.

What is the labor force were to organize at a level seen at the end of the Second World War?

The Republican oligarchy would be raving insomniacs, tearing their hair and gnashing teeth over nightmares of aggrieved employees breaking into the boardroom to lynch their bosses.

Oh were it only true…

It’s only a net loss for the employees because it’s so difficult to organize; it’s an up-hill struggle that takes years. And that’s also why the ‘well enough’ is not really that well.

Besides, in more progressive societies the main role of the unions has already shited from forcing employers to treat their employees well to mild syndicalism, routine participation in management, as unions now have seats on boards of directors allocated to them by law.

“(Parts of the auto industry are an exception.)”

Fancy that, John; I live in south-east Michigan, and work in the auto industry. And know people who had bricks hurled through their windows during the Detroit Newspaper strike.

With all due respect, Mark, when you call somebody a “priviledged, rich academic”, you should not expect a civil response. I do not have the philosophical background to comment on the relationship between power, trust, and interest. However, as I said above, I believe that the Bush Administration’s strong anti-labor record creates a strong prima facie case that the disclosure rules are not in the interests of labor union members. Moreover, the fact that union reformers criticize these regulations as onerous — sucking crucial time and money away from union members — further strengthens the case against them:
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2003/07/d.html

By the way, while some people have making comparison between stockholders and union members, whereas I think the more relevant comparison is between union members and employees in general. What control do employees have over the resources that their corporations spend on political activities, or other major decisions, for that matter?

Peter, I’ve explained, above, how in Henry’s own theory, it is necessary and prudent for an actor to undertake an evaluation of relative economic, social, and/or politcial positions before coming to trust another party and their recommendations/actions. I’ve quoted his words. Review them if you don’t believe me, or reinterpret his theory as you like. Henry wants union members to trust him to advance their interests; he believes that they should trust his evaluation of the reforms. I simply performed the same evaluation on his (academic) position that he performed on Republican law-makers. He has conceded the reasonableness of this move by challenging me to prove that he has a material interest in giving unions bad advice. I noted that this was not the test he outlined above, in (a) and (b) (identity of actors or exact alignment of interets). He has yet to respond substantively to this and other criticisms, hoping that his ad hominems and irrelevancies will persuade the more foolish among us. Apparently unable to comport himself with dignity usually associated with professional academics, he has retired from the field.

I’ve had debates with John Quiggin before, and he managed to maintain a civil and dignified demeanour. I’m not sure why Henry finds this so difficult.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.