Chicago’s crime and violence problem is a federal problem, requiring a federal solution. The federal problem is a toothless labor regulation system (the NLRA) which has allowed the USA to become a labor union desert over the last two generations. The only practical solution to ubiquitous union busting — which has become so endemic it can no longer be rooted out by any rebuilt enforcement if you ask me — is regularly scheduled, union cert-recert-decert elections at every private workplace. https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/
It would be an automatic clean up issue for Democrats: giving people their power back. Let me give a bit far fetched example of the power attraction, but I think you’ll get the idea. When I lived in San Francisco for a while, Mayor Willie Brown wanted to break up the conjunction of service offices in city hall and scatter them around — but people liked the concentration — the feeling of power, really — that everything was on tap to serve them in once place.
As the 40% lowest income folks. Would the employees of Target and Walgreen’s for instance (economics aside, good places to work) love to be able to establish a union as easily as applying for a business license; no impossible gauntlet to run (or even a little gauntlet). They’d give their eye teeth.
Another good crew to ask about this might be today’s gig workers, who tend to have more middle class ideas if not bread.
EM,
I think we’ve been down this road before. The link you quote (included in Strom’s article) is the REPUBLICAN proposal. Strom is proposing regular cert-recert-decert elections at EVERY private workplace — not just recert-decert elections where there a union is already present. Don’t know why that is so difficult to understand. To wit:
“Republicans in Congress have already proposed a bill that would require a new election in each [private] unionized bargaining unit whenever, through turnover, expansion, or merger, a unit experiences at least 50 percent turnover. While no union would be happy about expending limited resources on regular retention elections, I think it would be hard to turn down a trade that would allow the 93% of workers who are unrepresented to have a chance to opt for unionization on a regular schedule.” https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/
Why take the risk? You are expecting Republicans will enforce the outcome of this type of law in a fair manner. They have proven repeatedly they have no intention of doing so.
Run,
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. The Republican proposal is just offered as an example of: if they can do it, we can too. We are not proposing the Republican version.
We are proposing cert-recert-decert at every private workplace (whether they have a union presently or not). First and foremost this proposal would be the biggest draw to get alienated blue collar voters back under the Democratic banner. They just need Dems to do something realistic for them.
Regularly scheduled union elections could turn America into Germany overnight: critical mass of labor union density. They are the only thing that can, given our intractable disease of union busting.
Re: Can Lightfoot help the neighborhoods by helping downtown?
http://l.e.crainalerts.com/rts/go2.aspx?h=826980&tp=i-H43-Dw-5xG-P4kI2-1n-1CUf-1c-P4x0J-iQ7o
Chicago’s crime and violence problem is a federal problem, requiring a federal solution. The federal problem is a toothless labor regulation system (the NLRA) which has allowed the USA to become a labor union desert over the last two generations. The only practical solution to ubiquitous union busting — which has become so endemic it can no longer be rooted out by any rebuilt enforcement if you ask me — is regularly scheduled, union cert-recert-decert elections at every private workplace.
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/
It would be an automatic clean up issue for Democrats: giving people their power back. Let me give a bit far fetched example of the power attraction, but I think you’ll get the idea. When I lived in San Francisco for a while, Mayor Willie Brown wanted to break up the conjunction of service offices in city hall and scatter them around — but people liked the concentration — the feeling of power, really — that everything was on tap to serve them in once place.
As the 40% lowest income folks. Would the employees of Target and Walgreen’s for instance (economics aside, good places to work) love to be able to establish a union as easily as applying for a business license; no impossible gauntlet to run (or even a little gauntlet). They’d give their eye teeth.
Another good crew to ask about this might be today’s gig workers, who tend to have more middle class ideas if not bread.
Yeah, regular union elections, as defined by the bill only happen when:
“require union recertification after a turnover in the workforce exceeding 50% of the bargaining unit.”
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2723
As anti labor as any legislation in recent memory. And pushed by supposedly pro labor people.
EM,
I think we’ve been down this road before. The link you quote (included in Strom’s article) is the REPUBLICAN proposal. Strom is proposing regular cert-recert-decert elections at EVERY private workplace — not just recert-decert elections where there a union is already present. Don’t know why that is so difficult to understand. To wit:
“Republicans in Congress have already proposed a bill that would require a new election in each [private] unionized bargaining unit whenever, through turnover, expansion, or merger, a unit experiences at least 50 percent turnover. While no union would be happy about expending limited resources on regular retention elections, I think it would be hard to turn down a trade that would allow the 93% of workers who are unrepresented to have a chance to opt for unionization on a regular schedule.”
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/
Denis:
Why take the risk? You are expecting Republicans will enforce the outcome of this type of law in a fair manner. They have proven repeatedly they have no intention of doing so.
Run,
I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. The Republican proposal is just offered as an example of: if they can do it, we can too. We are not proposing the Republican version.
We are proposing cert-recert-decert at every private workplace (whether they have a union presently or not). First and foremost this proposal would be the biggest draw to get alienated blue collar voters back under the Democratic banner. They just need Dems to do something realistic for them.
Regularly scheduled union elections could turn America into Germany overnight: critical mass of labor union density. They are the only thing that can, given our intractable disease of union busting.