Dr Layne_Farrar’s report has been cited in almost all of the anti-EFCA rhetoric describing the bill as a “jobs-killer, which is based on a surprisingly tiny sliver of data from just three Canadian provinces dating back 33 years.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/03/rent-a-researcher-business-groups-peddle-dubious-study-claiming-labor-bill-would-cause-job-losses.html

Not only have media sources failed to identify who’s backing the study — they’ve also been slow to look into Layne-Farrar’s claims and methodology, which are based entirely on decades-old data from a handful of Canadian provinces.

Layne-Farrar builds her entire claim that the EFCA and resulting rise in union membership will lead to mass unemployment around one set of data — namely, “a panel dataset of Canadian provinces over the twenty-two year period 1976-1997″ (page 20).

Why Canada? Because, she says, their economy is roughly similar to the U.S. Canada is also unique in that labor laws differ between the country’s 10 provinces — some provinces use EFCA-like “card check” and others that don’t, and one can compare the results.

But buried in page 20, Layne-Farrar herself admits that the data from which her entire argument is constructed isn’t so great after all:

While the Canadian dataset is quite rich, it does have its limitations. For example, out of ten provinces that experienced changes in labor institutions (i.e., card check vs. mandatory voting) between 1976 and 1997, only three had enough variation in the card check rules themselves over time to allow for the reasonable estimation of any direct effects.

So instead of comparing 10 provinces, the study is really based on the experience of just three: Alberta, British Columbia and Newfoundland, from which Layne-Farrar proceeds to extrapolate how many jobs will supposedly be lost in the U.S. if EFCA is to pass.

But does even this small sampling of three Canadian provinces tell us much of anything about card check, unions and unemployment?

Not really, given all the other factors that contribute to losing jobs. For example, in Newfoundland, one of Canada’s poorest provinces, unemployment has always been high — but that has more to do with the boom and bust of the oil and fishing industries in the coastal province than anything to do with card check.

But Layne-Farrar doesn’t take any of these realities into account. And she ignores the most obvious evidence of all: If unions really were the cause of unemployment, why has Canadian unemployment risen in recent years — including 241,000 jobs lost in manufacturing along between 2001 and 2007 — even as union membership has declined?

Even as a piece of business research-for-hire, Layne-Farrar’s study is shockingly weak — based on a thin set of old and irrelevant data that doesn’t even bear out her own conclusions.

If businesses bankrolled Layne-Farrar in hopes that her research and testimony would be a silver bullet that could help stop the Employee Free Choice Act, they didn’t get their money’s worth.
————————————————————-

The blog posting is incorrect to assert that only data from 3 provinces is used. She notes that only three provinces have enough variation to look at the effect of switching the rules on card check. So, her solution is to look at the effect of union density across all 10 provinces on unemployment rates.

In other words, her study does not examine the effect of the rule change directly, it can’t the data isn’t sufficient. Then, we can quibble about a lot of the methods and models, but we can set that aside and ask whether her models are fundamentally sound. Basically, when she asks how union density drives unemployment rates, her models necessarily make the assumption that unemployment rates don’t drive union density (that’s the way the math works). But, that’s clearly a fallacy. She tries some adjustments to get around this, but none are convincing. For example, she lags the union density so that she is asking whether union density from a year ago is related to unemployment today. I see what she’s trying to do, but it’s just not good enough–especially for a paper that draws such sweeping conclusions.

According to the study, An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications, every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration will result in a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate the following year. If Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar’s theory was correct, then the huge drops in Unionized jobs seen over the last 30 years, should have resulted in full employment.

EFCA ABOLUTELY eliminates the right of secret ballot in Union Elections, unless you believe that a union will take the path of most resistance and elect not to have the NLRB recognize the union by simply providing signed cards. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. The “choice” is up to the union, not the workers.

I will always tell the truth, or at least not lie on purpose.
I HATE unions, I HATE what they represent, and I strongly dislike (I wouldn’t say hate) 90% of the union workers I have ever met.
I’m a self employed third shift courier driver. Hardly a “shill” for corporate greed. Hell, I’ve never made more than 50k a year.
All I know is that each and every night I get frustrated watching lazy postal union workers refuse to help me or do anything outside of their “job description”. It’s like talking to a wall with them.
I see good people leave and get replaced by “workers” whose sole purpose in life is to do the least amount of work possible and still collect a pay check.
In my experience, all Unions do is sap the energy, ingenuity, and work ethic out of a room…all while forcing people to pay “dues” that yield little to nothing in return.
Frankly, I’d say the unions themselves are greedier and more corrupt than any corporation they supposedly try to protect “poor helpless” workers from.
I will never work in an industry that forces me to join a union and give up my individuality and ability to negotiate my own pay based on the value I bring to a company.
I do better work than most people and want that to be praised and rewarded, not have myself threatened for “making everyone else look bad”, as has happened to my friend Jay at US Airways.
I would never deny people the right to collectively bargain their independence away, but a secret ballot must be the mandatory route for doing so…and I would quit any company that unionized on the spot.

And just some food for thought….what three industries have a strong tie to unions? Automobiles, airlines, and education….all three of which are failing horribly.
Unions are obsolete in today’s global environment because as long as there is a Chinese guy willing to do the same work for pennies on the dollar, you can’t blame a corporation for prefering to use them…for the sake of the company’s and stockholder’s well being.
Indeed, I hate to break it to you, but it’s not YOUR job. It’s the companies job. If you aren’t willing to do it for what they are willing to pay or the way they say it needs to be done, then frankly you just need to move on.

Darn. I’ve had a tough day…
Forgive the tone of my rambling. I mean nothing personal against you and do thank you for taking the time to at least write a comment. Cheers for that.
Have a good night.

Just tell the truth: you don’t like unions. That’s fine. Most shills for corporations don’t. But just be square with us. Don’t LIE.