
Rule to Require Employers to Disclose Use of Anti-Union Consultants - pavornyoh
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/business/economy/union-labor-regulation-consultant-relationships.html?ref=business&_r=0
======
resc1440
The article says this is repairing a loophole:

> The 1959 law on which the regulations are based already required employers
> to disclose the hiring of such consultants. But the Labor Department argued
> that previous administrations had allowed an enormous loophole that
> effectively exempted consultants who coached supervisors on how to influence
> employees so long as the consultants didn’t interact with the employees
> directly.

But won't they just hire the same people as "workforce relationship
consultants who are TOTALLY not anti-union"? Isn't there an infinite supply of
loopholes here?

~~~
kodablah
An infinite supply indeed. For example:

> [...] lawyers would only have to make the relevant disclosures if they
> provide advice about how to discourage the formation of a union or
> collective bargaining. He said that advice on pure legal matters would
> remain uncovered by the rule.

Quite subjective.

~~~
tryitnow
How is that subjective? Not being a smartass here, I just see that there's a
pretty clear distinction between "advice on pure legal matters" and advice on
"how to discourage" union formation.

It's like the difference between a political campaign's counsel and it's
campaign consultants. Or the difference between a corporations general counsel
and its PR department.

Now of course, people will try to get around this, but that's true of any law.
Just because we outlaw murder doesn't mean there are no murderers.

------
TheLogothete
Yay! Unions are great! Just look at IL's fiscal situation!

~~~
InclinedPlane
Unions are terrible. Awful, in fact. At least on average.

But not having unions seems even worse, so until we invent something better...

~~~
hackuser
That sounds like what Churchill(?) said about democracy: A terrible form of
government, but better than all the alternatives. It's the nature of human
institutions - name one that's better.

The way I think of it is that other people with power are act in corrupt,
self-interested ways, why should working people be denied power for doing
those things? They shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

Unions are about power; it gives the working class a seat at the table with
all the other power-hungry corrupt people who run our society. Note that since
unions started weakening in the 1980s, wages have stagnated for those people
who have lost power and they have increased dramatically for the wealthy
people who have retained it. That's simplistic, but I don't think those
outcomes are unrelated.

I'd like an end to corruption, as well as universal peace and love; but I'm
not going to wait for it to happen before I support unions.

~~~
mahyarm
Corruption comes from incentives, and it's all about (counter)balancing
incentives.

