Employee Free Choice Act

[The Flying Dutchman]

This is going to be a watershed event in my opinion if the Democrats and Obama get it passed in January.

It will slowly strangle the entire US economy like the unions have done for Detroit.

Here's the gist (http://www.timesleader.com/news/Union-friendly__bill_controversial_11-23-2008.html) of it

Under current law – the National Labor Relations Act – a secret-ballot election among employees is required if representation by a union is disputed after an organizing attempt in which more than 30 percent of employees requested representation.

The Employee Free Choice Act would amend the rules by eliminating the secret-ballot requirement if more than 50 percent of a company’s employees sign cards indicating they favor representation by a specific union – the card check process.

There's no question why the unions want this.Its easy enough to avoid confrontation when a co-worker asks you to sign up, because you still have your secret ballot vote to say no. But if you don't have that option, you'll have a good chance of making enemies if you vote your conscience by not signing up.

I can't understand why the Democrats would favour this legislation to subject workers to coercion. It can't be any other reason than to support a donating special interest at the expense of workers and the country as a whole.

I believe unions are a neccessary component of the economy if only to protect abused workers and a hammer over the head of selfish and abusive employers, but we need to keep in mind that we live in a global competitive world. There's a reason why steel and auto plants have been closing down in the Northeast.

If Obama supports this, he will lose my respect.

[Antinor01]

I would be more willing to believe the mantra that they want to help the worker if union membership were completely optional. When you can be forced into a union just because co-workers want to be represented, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (I nearly had to quit my job over this issue, but fortunately they decided not to organize my department)

[spazattak]

The secret ballot still exists - if between 30-50 percent of workers have the cards the employers can still request a secret ballot before recognizing the union. If over 50% of workers have signed cards then there's no need for the secret ballot. It makes sense doesn't it? Why should the employer get to challenge the organization if over 50% have already put their names on the line? The secret ballot isn't an employee protection mechanism. It's an employer protection mechanism.

[Furious_Marmot]

Why would this only work in one direction? Couldn't one argue that this change would invite coercion from both organizers and management?

If you don't sign the card, the union breaks your legs. If you do sign, the company's thugs break your legs. Or, less violently, either or both sides make it known that they will pay you for your signature.

[spazattak]

Why would this only work in one direction? Couldn't one argue that this change would invite coercion from both organizers and management?

If you don't sign the card, the union breaks your legs. If you do sign, the company's thugs break your legs. Or, less violently, either or both sides make it known that they will pay you for your signature.

Coercion is against the law. It's specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit.

ETA: I'd like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I've ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Coercion is against the law. It's specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit.

How does one prove coercion without evidence? If I'm worried about how I'm going to get along with my disappointed co-worker for the next 20 years, how do I present my case to the labour board ?

ETA: I'd like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I've ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that?
As in most bills that are reported.

[Antinor01]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1041:

That's the senate version.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.800:

There's the house one. Both are from 2007, it appears that is the last time they were introduced.

[spazattak]

How does one prove coercion without evidence? If I'm worried about how I'm going to get along with my disappointed co-worker for the next 20 years, how do I present my case to the labour board?
How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you're on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they're at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers.

[Furious_Marmot]

Coercion is against the law. It's specifically mentioned in the act. If the labor board finds that anyone has been coerced into signing cards, they no longer get federal recognition as a bargaining unit.

ETA: I'd like to note that every single con-EFCA argument I've ever read has never, ever linked to the actual text of the bill - why is that?

Yes, coercion is illegal, but there is a long history of its use in all kinds of group decision making. Threats and bribes happen, have happened, and will always happen in any voting scheme.
Why should it be necessary to put oneself at risk to act on one's right to organize?

Anonymity always protects the worker by allowing them to vote solely as their interests dictate. This not possible when other parties with an interest in the outcome can review your vote.. Vote buying is useless when the bosses cannot confirm that they got their money's worth. Violence to intimidate beforehand or retaliate after the fact cannot be targeted appropriately. Eliminating a secret ballot removes an effective layer of protection. What is the company going to do? Fire everyone, or beat them all when a vote to unionize is passed?

[The Flying Dutchman]

How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you're on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they're at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers.

Oh please ! I'm not concerned about the workers who are active in promoting their agenda openly for or against. I'm concerned about the workers who will be forced to state their position openly against their wishes. There's a reason why we get more political and religious discussions on this anonymous board than we get at the workplace. There's a lot of people who just want to get along.

[Furious_Marmot]

How is this different from any other topic in the work place? Maybe you're on to something here.. maybe we should prevent workers from talking about their families, personal lives, pets, politics, religion, salaries, benefits, certain projects, the direction of the company and parking spaces while they're at work too - since you know.. that might make some people uncomfortable around their coworkers.

The difference is that no one is forced to openly declare a position about their personal life, etc. while excercising their right to organize. They may choose to remain silent on all the subjects you list.
A decision to change the rules which govern a workplace is almost certain to provoke strong sentiments. Why force people to choose which group of coworkers they anger? Why not let them vote their concscience, secretly?

[UnwrittenNocturne]

Oh please ! I'm not concerned about the workers who are active in promoting their agenda openly for or against. I'm concerned about the workers who will be forced to state their position openly against their wishes. There's a reason why we get more political and religious discussions on this anonymous board than we get at the workplace. There's a lot of people who just want to get along.

But you still missed the point. A ballot will no longer be required when over 50% have already signed for the union. It just won't be needed

[spazattak]

The difference is that no one is forced to openly declare a position about their personal life, etc. while excercising their right to organize. They may choose to remain silent on all the subjects you list.
A decision to change the rules which govern a workplace is almost certain to provoke strong sentiments. Why force people to choose which group of coworkers they anger? Why not let them vote their concscience, secretly?

Umm.. because no one's forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that's a total non-starter.

[The Flying Dutchman]

But you still missed the point. A ballot will no longer be required when over 50% have already signed for the union. It just won't be needed

Of course. But a secret ballot will needed to verify the unfettered legitimacy of that outcome.

[erislover]

Unions have always wanted to be on par with employers, and though this is not what I thought would be the result of those efforts, it doesn't surprise me.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Umm.. because no one's forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that's a total non-starter.

Sure, put people in a situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Very considerate of you.

[spazattak]

Yes, coercion is illegal, but there is a long history of its use in all kinds of group decision making. Threats and bribes happen, have happened, and will always happen in any voting scheme.
Why should it be necessary to put oneself at risk to act on one's right to organize? since voting's so fraught with perils, maybe we should just reconsider the whole electoral process then eh?

Anonymity always protects the worker by allowing them to vote solely as their interests dictate. This not possible when other parties with an interest in the outcome can review your vote.. Vote buying is useless when the bosses cannot confirm that they got their money's worth. Violence to intimidate beforehand or retaliate after the fact cannot be targeted appropriately. Eliminating a secret ballot removes an effective layer of protection. What is the company going to do? Fire everyone, or beat them all when a vote to unionize is passed?

No one is voting! If they want to unionize - they sign a card. If there are cards from 30%-50% of the workers the employer can require there be an anonymous vote before recognizing their right to bargain. If there's over 50% the employer doesn't have a choice. The labor board recognizes them at a federal level and they have the power to bargain without the employer making them vote on it.

[gonzomax]

You want your position secret because the company will come after you. It is not so much about fellow employees.

[spazattak]

Of course. But a secret ballot will needed to verify the unfettered legitimacy of that outcome.Can you describe to me a situation in a shop of 100 workers that results in a shop being unionized against the will of the majority of the workers?

[Furious_Marmot]

Umm.. because no one's forcing anyone to do anything. Last time I checked you can remain silent on the whole unionization thing too. Unless you can demonstrate where in the law that it requires workers to sign cards either supporting or against supporting their right to be recognized - that's a total non-starter.

I am not arguing that the worker is required to declare a position in order to continiue to work. I am arguing that without a secret ballot, they are required to sign the card in order to participate in the process. To remain silent is to be unable to excercise your rights.

Why is it necessary to expose oneself to retaliation in order to vote? What specific advantage does public voting have over secret voting? Why is it only advantageous in the decision to unionize and not for any other vote?

[The Flying Dutchman]

If they want to unionize - they sign a card. If there are cards from 30%-50% of the workers the employer can require there be an anonymous vote before recognizing their right to bargain. If there's over 50% the employer doesn't have a choice. The labor board recognizes them at a federal level and they have the power to bargain without the employer making them vote on it.

Explain this

Pat Connors, principal officer of Teamsters Local 401 in Wilkes-Barre, said unions currently need 30 percent of employees to sign union cards to even get a vote. His union tries to get 50 to 60 percent of employees to sign cards.

“We’ve had places where we got 100 percent. Then, by the time the election comes around, we lose a vote,” Connors said.

Why did these workers say yes on the cards and no on the secret ballot ?

[Furious_Marmot]

You want your position secret because the company will come after you. It is not so much about fellow employees.

We have a winner!

I would love to have access to collective bargaining in my workplace. I would vote for it in a New York minute. So would every one of my peers whose opinion I have heard. None of us will make our wishes known, however, because we know that we will face retaliation from above. So we remain unorganized.

[Antinor01]

Explain this

Why did these workers say yes on the cards and no on the secret ballot ?

In our office the union organizers were telling people that signing the card didn't mean they were voting for the union. Just that they were interested. (perhaps not a complete lie, but certainly misleading)

[Furious_Marmot]

since voting's so fraught with perils, maybe we should just reconsider the whole electoral process then eh?



No one is voting! If they want to unionize - they sign a card. If there are cards from 30%-50% of the workers the employer can require there be an anonymous vote before recognizing their right to bargain. If there's over 50% the employer doesn't have a choice. The labor board recognizes them at a federal level and they have the power to bargain without the employer making them vote on it.

The electoral process IS fraught with perils, but it is considerably fairer and freer from coercion with secret balloting than it would be without. How would removing secret balloting decrease 'peril'?

Signing the card is voting. What else would you call it?
There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion here. I assert that people sometimes vote 'yes' when their vote is subject to review, not because it is their will, but because they fear retaliation. Your comments indicate that you believe that people who vote 'yes' in an open system always do so without coercion. Is this a correct assessment of your position?

[spazattak]

We have a winner!

I would love to have access to collective bargaining in my workplace. I would vote for it in a New York minute. So would every one of my peers whose opinion I have heard. None of us will make our wishes known, however, because we know that we will face retaliation from above. So we remain unorganized.

I will now repeat this for the 4th time. You still get a secret ballot if between 30 and 50% participate in the card-check. Someone needs to be willing to stand up to management or no one will be able to negotiate when you do have the right to bargain. So a third need to sign on. Which shouldn't be tough if they know their whole shop is going to vote their way with the secret ballot.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Can you describe to me a situation in a shop of 100 workers that results in a shop being unionized against the will of the majority of the workers?

No, because up till now a secret ballot is required.

There are cases where the majority of workers are unionized against their will. In thirty per cent of cases where the employer applied for decertificion (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+Elections%3A+Decertification+Elections+and+Employer+Petitions+(1990-2004)), the workers voted against their union.

[Magiver]

since voting's so fraught with perils, maybe we should just reconsider the whole electoral process then eh?



No one is voting! If they want to unionize - they sign a card. If there are cards from 30%-50% of the workers the employer can require there be an anonymous vote before recognizing their right to bargain. If there's over 50% the employer doesn't have a choice. The labor board recognizes them at a federal level and they have the power to bargain without the employer making them vote on it. You can be coerced into signing the card but protected from retaliation by a secret ballot. You may simply want it voted on so union representatives will stop harassing you every time you drive into work. I've been there.

How would like your vote for elected officials posted on the internet?

[spazattak]

You can be coerced into signing the card but protected from retaliation by a secret ballot. You may simply want it voted on so union representatives will stop harassing you every time you drive into work. I've been there.

How would like your vote for elected officials posted on the internet?

Seriously.. I'm beginning to get short on patience. I need everyone to realize the following FACTS:

1) Card-check is not a vote.
2) No one's vote is made public. In fact there is no vote if there is over 50% card-check participation.
3) There is still the possibility of a secret ballot if between 30% and 50% of workers participate in the card-check.
4) The secret ballot is something instituted by the EMPLOYER to challenge the bargaining unit's legitimacy.
5) The only thing changing with the new card-check system is that _IF_ over 50% of workers participate in the card check - there is no longer a NEED for the secret ballot because a majority of the work place has put their names down in support of the bargaining unit.

[spazattak]

No, because up till now a secret ballot is required.

There are cases where the majority of workers are unionized against their will. In thirty per cent of cases where the employer applied for decertificion (http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/index.php?page=Union+Elections%3A+Decertification+Elections+and+Employer+Petitions+(1990-2004)), the workers voted against their union.

That is not true. An employer can choose to recognize a bargaining unit without a secret ballot.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Explain this



Why did these workers say yes on the cards and no on the secret ballot ?

Because once there is a petition for election, the employer can, and usually does, employ an aggressive anti-union campaign, complete with captive-audience meetings, threats of strikes and dues, intimidation, etc. Union busting and prevention is a multi-million dollar per year enterprise-- attornies, PR firms, consultants, etc. are brought in to talk the workers out of a union.

I posted this in the last Free Choice thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479535&highlight=EFCA) that came up. I'll re-post it here:


I've been a union organizer for upwards of 5 years now. I can honestly say I have never witnessed or heard about a co-worker or member organizer threatening or coercing someone to sign a card against his or her will. Does it happen? I suspect. However, if unions regularly were putting illegal and unwanted pressure on workers to sign cards, don't you think more than 12% of the workforce would be unionized right now? Unions-- i.e. their members and their staff-- are not the bullies and thugs we're made out to be. In fact, most of my co-workers are bleeding-heart pacifists.

With unions' resources so limited-- and the Bush NLRB so stacked in favor of business-- we can't afford to waste our time on worksites that don't really want a union. We aren't looking to force people to sign cards "just to get a union." When most unions organize a worksite (and I can't speak to all unions-- I know there are turds to be found in organized labor), we are looking for people that REALLY want a union. If we threaten people (as chappachula alluded to), we would be slapped with an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) faster than you could say "Unfair Labor Practice." Not to mention, it's 10 times easier to decertify a union than it is to certify one; that means if we don't truly have strong support from the workers, they'll be gone in a year. Why would we waste our time and resources on a flash in the pan like that?

Finally, right now, workers trying to organize are at a huge disadvantage. Businesses have complete access to their workers, to scare them, fire them and harrass them if they support forming a union. As a union organizer, I've got virtually no access to the workers whatsoever, and any access I may have is extremely limited. So, under the current NLRB election process, many workers might support the formation of a union, but they constantly feel like their job is at risk if they support it. Once that 30% of cards is filed with the NLRB, and an election is scheduled, management starts an all-out anti-union campaign where they set out to scare the shit out of the workers. They fire supporters, harrass supporters, tell workers they'll have to go on strike, tell them that the company will close if they unionize, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on anti-union PR and law firms.

Now, a lot of what they do is illegal, but every company knows that the penalty for breaking the law in this case is merely having to post notices that they broke the law and that they won't do it again; many guilty companies don't even post this in areas where their workers are located. And that's it. No restitution, no re-hiring of fired employees. Union campaigns, contrary to what many in the public seem to think, are stacked heavily in favor of the company. Like I said earlier, if unions were as tough and thuggish as we're made out to be, always coercing poor Joe Six Pack to sign a card, a hell of a lot more than 12% of the workforce would belong to unions.

If workers don't want a union, and don't want to sign a card, they won't, no matter how much pressure another person puts on them. Knowing that, organizers don't waste their time with anti-union workers. And going to a 50-percent-plus-one card-check system (spelled out in EFCA) won't give unions any unfair advantage-- we still won't have any real access to the workers, and we still can't force anyone to sign a card (that would be illegal and would ultimately resort the campaign back to an NLRB election). EFCA will, however, neutralize management's often-times illegal anti-union campaign that takes place prior to an election.

The way things are now, come election day, all the company has to do is bus their anti-union workers to the polling site, and on the flip side, instruct supervisors to make it difficult for known supporters to make it to vote. Happens all the time.

Ultimately, unions aren't against secret ballots, we're against ballots that are cast in a system that's completely stacked to favor management. Right now, a mere 1% of the workforce could cast a ballot in a union election, and decide whether all of the workers there have a union or not. However, under the Employee Free Choice Act, it would require 50% + 1 of ALL workers to certify the union. To me that sounds more democratic than having an election with 200 people show up out of a unit of 2000.

[Furious_Marmot]

I will now repeat this for the 4th time. You still get a secret ballot if between 30 and 50% participate in the card-check. Someone needs to be willing to stand up to management or no one will be able to negotiate when you do have the right to bargain. So a third need to sign on. Which shouldn't be tough if they know their whole shop is going to vote their way with the secret ballot.

I will now repeat this for the fourth time. The objection is not to the 30-50% card check situation, the worker is protected by a secret ballot in that case. The problem is that there is no protection against coercion in the 51-100% card check situation. What is the objection to the secret ballot in that case? Is there no possibility of coercion?

How is standing up to management beforehand, when there is no union protection the same thing as negotiating with them once that protection is in place? The first is extremely dangerous, the second is considerably less so.

[spazattak]

I will now repeat this for the fourth time. The objection is not to the 30-50% card check situation, the worker is protected by a secret ballot in that case. The problem is that there is no protection against coercion in the 51-100% card check situation. What is the objection to the secret ballot in that case? Is there no possibility of coercion?

How is standing up to management beforehand, when there is no union protection the same thing as negotiating with them once that protection is in place? The first is extremely dangerous, the second is considerably less so.

Where's the coercion coming in? Do the numbers. Using a 100 worker force - if there's 30 - they get the secret ballot. If that 30 isn't confident in the secret ballot and wants to coerce some folks to push it over 50%, they need 21 cards. That means coercing 21 of the remaining 70 people in the work force. That's 30 against 70. 30 people bullying 21 into signing a stupid card. On top of that those 30 just broke the law. They just guaranteed their union gets de-certified upon challenge because you now have 21 witnesses to coercion. You seriously think this is going to happen when those 21 have the other 50 on their side?

[Furious_Marmot]

Seriously.. I'm beginning to get short on patience. I need everyone to realize the following FACTS:

1) Card-check is not a vote.
2) No one's vote is made public. In fact there is no vote if there is over 50% card-check participation.
3) There is still the possibility of a secret ballot if between 30% and 50% of workers participate in the card-check.
4) The secret ballot is something instituted by the EMPLOYER to challenge the bargaining unit's legitimacy.
5) The only thing changing with the new card-check system is that _IF_ over 50% of workers participate in the card check - there is no longer a NEED for the secret ballot because a majority of the work place has put their names down in support of the bargaining unit.

1. Card check is a vote. You may vote 'yes' and expose yourself to retaliation by the employer. You may avoid coercion from the employer by not voting at all, this exposes you to retaliation from pro-organization workers. A non-vote is functionally equivalent to a 'no' vote since the threshold percentage is based on the total number of workers. A non-vote has power in this system, unlike in the electoral system.
2. Every 'yes' vote is made public because the employer may review the cards. This opens the system to coercion bythe employer.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
5. There is still a NEED, because without a secret ballot it is impossible to determine whether the worker was coerced to vote 'yes' with his signature or 'no' with his non-participation.

I ask again why are open votes superior to secret votes?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Because once there is a petition for election, the employer can, and usually does, employ an aggressive anti-union campaign, complete with captive-audience meetings, threats of strikes and dues, intimidation, etc. Union busting and prevention is a multi-million dollar per year enterprise-- attornies, PR firms, consultants, etc. are brought in to talk the workers out of a union.



I don't know how a worker can be intimadated to vote against his wishes if his wishes are not known. What's wrong with ther "education" that the employer provides to make their case? So what if they get talked out of a decision. Are you suggesting the worker is stupid ?

[Furious_Marmot]

Where's the coercion coming in? Do the numbers. Using a 100 worker force - if there's 30 - they get the secret ballot. If that 30 isn't confident in the secret ballot and wants to coerce some folks to push it over 50%, they need 21 cards. That means coercing 21 of the remaining 70 people in the work force. That's 30 against 70. 30 people bullying 21 into signing a stupid card. On top of that those 30 just broke the law. They just guaranteed their union gets de-certified upon challenge because you now have 21 witnesses to coercion. You seriously think this is going to happen when those 21 have the other 50 on their side?

Yes, I seriously think it can.

[Antinor01]

Because once there is a petition for election, the employer can, and usually does, employ an aggressive anti-union campaign, complete with captive-audience meetings, threats of strikes and dues, intimidation, etc. Union busting and prevention is a multi-million dollar per year enterprise-- attornies, PR firms, consultants, etc. are brought in to talk the workers out of a union.

And also as I mentioned above, some union reps lie and there are employees that for whatever reason simply don't understand that signing the card means they are voting for the union. Unless they make union membership optional for each employee or have the cards setup with a yes and a no option on the union I've got to support having a secret ballot so that every employee can make their voice heard.

[spazattak]

1. Card check is a vote. You may vote 'yes' and expose yourself to retaliation by the employer. You may avoid coercion from the employer by not voting at all, this exposes you to retaliation from pro-organization workers. A non-vote is functionally equivalent to a 'no' vote since the threshold percentage is based on the total number of workers. A non-vote has power in this system, unlike in the electoral system.
2. Every 'yes' vote is made public because the employer may review the cards. This opens the system to coercion bythe employer.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
5. There is still a NEED, because without a secret ballot it is impossible to determine whether the worker was coerced to vote 'yes' with his signature or 'no' with his non-participation.

I ask again why are open votes superior to secret votes?

1) A vote means choosing from a series of distinct options. A non-signature isn't the same as a 'no' by any means. It might mean 'I won't sign a card, but I'll vote for it when it comes in secret ballot'. There is no distinction between this stance and they 'hah! unions can suck my balls!' stance. Therefore it is not a vote because 'yes' and 'no' aren't the only options.
2) The card check is there as a way to get the ball rolling for union organization. You need a certain amount to sign up before you can proceed to the next step. It isn't a vote. It's a signed statement by an individual voicing their positive support for an employee organization. A statement != a vote. You can extrapolate votes from those statements if you were so inclined, but that doesn't change the fact that the statement isn't a vote. I can say that support gay marriage. But that doesn't mean that I voted against prop 8 in california. You can extrapolate that I would have from my statement, but my statement isn't the same thing as a vote.

[spazattak]

Yes, I seriously think it can.

How? And then how do these people not go to their employer with their concerns? Or the police department? Or the labor board?

[Magiver]

Where's the coercion coming in? Do the numbers. Using a 100 worker force - if there's 30 - they get the secret ballot. If that 30 isn't confident in the secret ballot and wants to coerce some folks to push it over 50%, they need 21 cards. That means coercing 21 of the remaining 70 people in the work force. That's 30 against 70. 30 people bullying 21 into signing a stupid card. On top of that those 30 just broke the law. They just guaranteed their union gets de-certified upon challenge because you now have 21 witnesses to coercion. You seriously think this is going to happen when those 21 have the other 50 on their side? The coercion comes from the union itself.

[spazattak]

The coercion comes from the union itself.

There is no union until the employer recognizes one. If they're bullying multiple people, that's multiple people who are then witnesses against the union. Coercion is against the law - they can go to prison for it. Not to mention get the union de-certified. The consequences outweigh the benefits. It's just not a realistic expectation.

[Furious_Marmot]

1) A vote means choosing from a series of distinct options. A non-signature isn't the same as a 'no' by any means. It might mean 'I won't sign a card, but I'll vote for it when it comes in secret ballot'. There is no distinction between this stance and they 'hah! unions can suck my balls!' stance. Therefore it is not a vote because 'yes' and 'no' aren't the only options.
2) The card check is there as a way to get the ball rolling for union organization. You need a certain amount to sign up before you can proceed to the next step. It isn't a vote. It's a signed statement by an individual voicing their positive support for an employee organization. A statement != a vote. You can extrapolate votes from those statements if you were so inclined, but that doesn't change the fact that the statement isn't a vote. I can say that support gay marriage. But that doesn't mean that I voted against prop 8 in california. You can extrapolate that I would have from my statement, but my statement isn't the same thing as a vote.

1. It is irrelevant why the individual does not vote. His non-vote has the effect of a no vote. Choosing not to participate still affects the outcome of the event. It is functionally the same as voting.

2. Whether you call it a statement or a vote doesn't change the result of a sufficient number of people doing it. To use yor example,
your statement of support for gay marriage does not have any power, because nobody counts it to determine whether to change the state constitution. They count your vote. No amount of statement in either direction changes anything. However a statement to support the union does in fact have power, because a sufficient number of such statements actually changes things.

[CutterJohn]

Where's the coercion coming in? Do the numbers. Using a 100 worker force - if there's 30 - they get the secret ballot. If that 30 isn't confident in the secret ballot and wants to coerce some folks to push it over 50%, they need 21 cards. That means coercing 21 of the remaining 70 people in the work force. That's 30 against 70. 30 people bullying 21 into signing a stupid card. On top of that those 30 just broke the law. They just guaranteed their union gets de-certified upon challenge because you now have 21 witnesses to coercion. You seriously think this is going to happen when those 21 have the other 50 on their side?

Coercion is not just holding someone up to a wall and threatening to kick them in the jibblies if they don't vote your way. It can be as simple as your friends ignoring you at the bar after your shift.

How many kids start smoking or [whatever] in order to fit in, be 'cool', and not be ostracized by their peers?

How many people evaded their peers/coworkers questions about who they were voting for this past election, because they were voting differently than their little clique?



And coming from the other direction, don't overlook pressure from management.


Right now, the cards just indicate a desire to have the vote, not your position. You could want a union, or want a vote so you can finally get the union people to shut up about it already. With this change, they become the vote, and there is going to be an awful lot of pressure on those who haven't yet voted from both sides.. From pro union employees to reach that 50%+1, and from management to avoid it.

Lets put it this way. There are 101 employees at the company you work for. 50/50 split so far, and everyone knows you are the only person who hasn't voted. Lets pretend you are undecided as well. Is that a position you would ever want to be in?

[The Flying Dutchman]

I don't know why these people are buying the union line when a majority of Americans want to keep the secret ballot (http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=ca1e5e83-21dc-4c98-9357-9f6cbfd09835)
Survey
We discovered that 79% of the American people support a worker’s right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union.


The tri-partisan agreement to defend this right is overwhelming, as 77% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, and 79% of independents believe in protecting private ballots. Support for private ballots was so broad it also spanned every subgroup examined, including majorities of every age, race, geographic group and both genders.

Just whose side are the Democrat politicians on anyway?

[Magiver]

How? And then how do these people not go to their employer with their concerns? Or the police department? Or the labor board?
"Officer, I'd like to report a union thug coming to my house to discuss an upcoming vote. No, he didn't threaten me, he just complemented me on my spouse, beautiful children, house, car, and rabbit. "

This conversation wouldn't happen if votes were kept secret. I’ve been harassed by union representatives before and that is for not signing the card. It’s easy to sign a card to avoid intimidation and then voting how I really feel if it is a secret ballot.

Secret ballots are fundamental in the concept of unfettered voting. You haven't made a case that would justify giving up a method that allows voting without retaliation.

I’ll ask you again, do you think your vote in political elections should be made public?

[Furious_Marmot]

How? And then how do these people not go to their employer with their concerns? Or the police department? Or the labor board?

Coercion need not (and is unlikely to) take the form of a knock down drag out brawl in which the 2 sides compare numbers beforehand and then have at it if their chances look good.

What if the pro-union guys are all senior employees? What if refusal to sign results in you getting put at the bottom of the list for overtime hours? How about bad peer reviews? What if your car gets keyed? OK that's pretty minor. There's a multitude of things to do, short of beating people.

[Magiver]

Just whose side are the Democrat politicians on anyway? 82% of their contributors?

[The Flying Dutchman]

82% of their contributors? You would think.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I don't know how a worker can be intimadated to vote against his wishes if his wishes are not known. What's wrong with ther "education" that the employer provides to make their case? So what if they get talked out of a decision. Are you suggesting the worker is stupid ?

This "education" is one thing if it's educating someone between Barack Obama or John McCain. But when the institution that stands between you and the unemployment line starts "educating" you on how you should vote-- it doesn't matter how bad you want a union-- you're scared enough to do what your boss says.

Imagine if federal agents went to houses and told people if they voted for Obama, they would be contributing to the downfall of the United States government.

Most union campaigns do not organize around fear and intimidation. Organizers are not forcing people to join or sign cards or vote a certain way; our number one goal is to build an organization.* If we built unions out of trickery, intimidation, lies and fear, these workers would have no reason to stay together after the organizing campaign was done. They would decertify, which is a relatively easy thing to do (easier than certifying, anyway). Where's the benefit for unions to spend time and resources organizing a union through less-than-upright methods, only to have it decertify in a year or sooner?

We're non-profits. We're not looking to rake in the dough. The dough that's brought in through dues goes to grow the organization and service our members. Again, why would we waste our resources to trick and intimidate workers to form a union they don't want, only to have them leave 6, 12, 18 months later? Unions put out resources to organize workers that actually need and want a union.

In an NLRB election, the employer stands to benefit long-term by waging an aggressive and expensive "Vote no" campaign based around intimidation, trickery and half-truths. In an NLRB election AND card-check situation, a union loses in the long-term by waging an aggressive and expensive "Vote yes" campaign based around intimidation, trickery and half-truths, as the workers will feel no need to stay with the union once the campaign is done.


* Does thuggish and intimidating organizing take place? Of course. Bad shit happens every day. But honestly, that's a pretty 20th century view of union organizing. What worked in 1950, 1975 and even 1990 doesn't work so well in 2008, and unions are starting to see that and organize around issues and workers' motivations rather than "Sign this card if you know what's good for you."




Upon preview: Flying Dutchman, you'll excuse me if I fart in the general direction of a survey about organized labor which was conducted by a group founded by Newt Gingrich and which is currently taking up the GOP mantra of "Drill, baby, drill."

[spazattak]

Coercion need not (and is unlikely to) take the form of a knock down drag out brawl in which the 2 sides compare numbers beforehand and then have at it if their chances look good.

What if the pro-union guys are all senior employees? Take them to Old Country Buffet
What if refusal to sign results in you getting put at the bottom of the list for overtime hours? Tell your supervisor since they're probably the ones that control OT hours anyway. And if you're supervisor's being a dick, talk to his/her supervisor.
How about bad peer reviews?So the minority who want to unionize just so happen to be the people responsible for the entirety of your peer-review? And don't peer reviews usually have some type of redress mechanism to dispute them? Seriously.. Are these real concerns? They seem pretty minor and easily dealt with.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Upon preview: Flying Dutchman, you'll excuse me if I fart in the general direction of a survey about organized labor which was conducted by a group founded by Newt Gingrich and which is currently taking up the GOP mantra of "Drill, baby, drill."

How about this R&R Partners and the Summit Group poll (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jpIcEAGUwVoJ:www.azchamber.com/uploads/Poll%2520Analysis.pdf+poll+employee+free+choice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca) Almost the same numbers.

[Olentzero]

One point I think hasn't been made too clear here and bears emphasizing:

If the employer can document intimidation and threats from the union organizers in the campaign, they can take it to the NLRB. If they win the case, card check goes out the window and the secret ballot is back in, no matter how many people in the unit signed cards.

That right there is a very strong incentive for union organizers (solidarity, Happy!) to operate on the up-and-up. They'd be wasting their time trying to strong-arm unorganized workers because the minute the employers get a whiff, it's straight to the NLRB and their efforts to get 50% +1 are for naught. And what employer isn't going to be watching the shop floor like a hawk for that kind of thing?

In general, it's good to remember one thing: The bosses are organized. They have their company and the law to back them up. The shop floor workers, the ones actually making the decision, don't have anything similar to back them up. Anything that makes it easier for workers to organize is a good thing in my opinion and I will be very glad to see the Employee Free Choice Act pass. I hope Obama does it.

In the interests of full disclosure...

Jeff Skinner
President
Translators and Interpreters Guild
CWA Local 32-100

[Happy Lendervedder]

How about this R&R Partners and the Summit Group poll (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jpIcEAGUwVoJ:www.azchamber.com/uploads/Poll%2520Analysis.pdf+poll+employee+free+choice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca) Almost the same numbers.


Ah, yes, a poll commissioned by a Chamber of Commerce. Stellar find.

I imagine the poll numbers might be different if the question were, say, "Do you support workers having the right to form a union without employer intimidation?" It's all in the wording, my friend.

[Snowboarder Bo]

How about this R&R Partners and the Summit Group poll Almost the same numbers.
Ah, yes, a poll commissioned by a Chamber of Commerce. Stellar find.

I imagine the poll numbers might be different if the question were, say, "Do you support workers having the right to form a union without employer intimidation?" It's all in the wording, my friend.

I love the loaded first question:When asked if they believed that “Secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections” 79% of the respondents indicated they “strongly agree” or “agree.”

How can anyone disagree with that question without saying "I believe that secret ballot elections are not the cornerstone of democracy"? This is a totally loaded question, and I don't believe that most (or possibly any) of the respondents actually know the language of the bills in question.

This survey, and the previous one linked, are both just self-serving crap from interested parties.

And this thread, and most threads about trade/labor unions on the SDMB, shows that quite a few people know little to nothing about unions, what they do, or how they work.

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=Happy Lendervedder;10491886]
Most union campaigns do not organize around fear and intimidation. QUOTE] Really? I guess you haven't had someone try to get you to sign up as you drive away from work while another person with a clipboard writes down your license plate number.

You haven't provided a reason why voting should be public domain.

[Magiver]

One point I think hasn't been made too clear here and bears emphasizing:

If the employer can document intimidation and threats from the union organizers in the campaign, they can take it to the NLRB. If they win the case, card check goes out the window and the secret ballot is back in, no matter how many people in the unit signed cards. Oh for crying out loud. How are you going to prove that? And if you tried you would be painting an even larger target on your chest.

Nobody representing this proposal has made a case for open ballots. If people want a union and vote it in with secret ballots then the current policy works. All this does is expose workers to unneccessary scrutiny.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I
How can anyone disagree with that question without saying "I believe that secret ballot elections are not the cornerstone of democracy"? This is a totally loaded question, and I don't believe that most (or possibly any) of the respondents actually know the language of the bills in question.

This survey, and the previous one linked, are both just self-serving crap from interested parties.

Ah, the bait and switch technique. very clever.

The relevant survey
The respondents were asked their opinions on the idea that “Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union.” 84% of respondents either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” with the federally-supervised union election. .

I take it that you must be in the tiny minority on this question and wish to take that right away.

Yes or No ?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Ah, yes, a poll commissioned by a Chamber of Commerce. Stellar find.

I imagine the poll numbers might be different if the question were, say, "Do you support workers having the right to form a union without employer intimidation?" It's all in the wording, my friend.

Ah, the bait and switch technique. very clever.

The relevant survey


I take it that you must be in the tiny minority on this question and wish to take that right away.

Yes or No ?

Your question does not accurately reflect the language of the bill(s) under discussion. Therefore, I have no answer to your question.

Also, the only bait & switch (or other misleading technique) is used by the survey. The question I quoted has a statement and a question all in one sentence. You either agree with the whole thing, or you disagree with the whole thing. That's a setup.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Most union campaigns do not organize around fear and intimidation. [QUOTE] Really? I guess you haven't had someone try to get you to sign up as you drive away from work while another person with a clipboard writes down your license plate number.

Point to where I said "No union campaigns organize around fear and intimidation." I am sorry for your experience, but I actually admit that many campaigns in the past did employ some degree of this technique, and a few still do, but I can tell you from first-hand experience and observation that most do not.

You haven't provided a reason why voting should be public domain.

I assume by "public domain" you mean that the employer can see who signed a card. Well, they can do that under the system now, as once the employees petition for an election (with 30% of the unit signing cards), the company has the right to see the cards.

Many public employers (states, counties and cities) already have what is considered "card check" (50% of the unit plus one sign cards and file for recognition). The workers that sign the cards in these campaigns are aware that the employer can see the cards once they are filed, but they are okay with that since once the cards are filed, they have the strength of a union behind them. If the cards are never filed, the company never sees them. And for the record, the names of card signers isn't "public record;" no one can FOIA to see who signed and who didn't, and no one's passing out lists of people who never signed cards. In the 70-plus years that public employees have been organizing, these "black lists" just haven't happened. Once the workers actually have recognition and a contract, they couldn't give two shits who didn't sign before.

[Olentzero]

Oh for crying out loud. How are you going to prove that? And if you tried you would be painting an even larger target on your chest.Proof of intimidation is the burden of the employer; presumably if they're watching the shop floor like a hawk they won't need to rely employee testimony to make their case.

What about the opposing side of a union campaign? Do you assert that the employer's efforts against organizing a union are 100% free of intimidation and coercion? Are those solely the purview of union organizers?

Nobody representing this proposal has made a case for open ballots. If people want a union and vote it in with secret ballots then the current policy works. All this does is expose workers to unneccessary scrutiny.According to an Economic Policy Institute briefing (http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp182.html) from 2005, if every worker who wanted union representation actually got it, the unionization rate among the workforce in general would have been 58%. In 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/union-membership-byte/union-rates-increase-in-2007/), the total unionized share of the workforce was 12.1%.

Essentially (and I know I'm comparing two different years of data but I strongly doubt there was much of a change in attitudes towards unions between 2005 and 2007) only 1 out of every 5 workers who want union representation actually have it. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current policy, in my opinion. I'd also like to point out that the EPI briefing indicates that workers see managemet opposition as the biggest obstacle to obtaining union representation - that smacks to me of coercion, if not intimidation!

[blondebear]

Stupid question: What if there are only TWO employees in a workplace? If one wants to go union and the other one doesn't, what happens then?

[Olentzero]

The coyote gets squashed.

Oh wait, that's the answer to the immovable vs unstoppable question. Sorry.
[/snark]

In all seriousness, I suppose the only way we'll really be able to answer that question is to wait until such a situation arises in real life.

[spazattak]

Stupid question: What if there are only TWO employees in a workplace? If one wants to go union and the other one doesn't, what happens then?

I think the better question is why would 2 people need collective bargaining. The 'group' that the pro-union worker is concerned with is himself. He can negotiate on his own behalf with his supervisor.

[spifflog]

I'm fairly middle of the road politically, and I voted for Obama. This is the first litmus test for me to see if the "change" mantra has any action behind it. Needless to say, a lot of Labor money went into his campaign, and Labor (unions) want this passed, at the detriment to your average blue collar worker.

Put up of shut up time for me, as far as Obama is concerned.

[blondebear]

In all seriousness, I suppose the only way we'll really be able to answer that question is to wait until such a situation arises in real life.

I think the better question is why would 2 people need collective bargaining. The 'group' that the pro-union worker is concerned with is himself. He can negotiate on his own behalf with his supervisor.
In my situation, the company has multiple work centers, the majority of which are staffed by unionized workers. However, at my location, we are non-union/non-management, and there are only two company employees and two contract workers (who don't have a say when it comes to union representation) under a single manager.

Last year, when we had four company employees, the union sent reps out in an attempt to sign us up. We decided that it wasn't worth it--our manager treats everyone fairly and goes out of her way to accomodate everyone requests for days off/shift changes, etc. That's all well and good until one person decides they're not getting their share of O/T or if a new supervisor comes in and ends up being a jerk.

So, this IS a real-life situation, since one employee represents 50% of the non-contractor workforce.

[spazattak]

I'm fairly middle of the road politically, and I voted for Obama. This is the first litmus test for me to see if the "change" mantra has any action behind it. Needless to say, a lot of Labor money went into his campaign, and Labor (unions) want this passed, at the detriment to your average blue collar worker.

Put up of shut up time for me, as far as Obama is concerned.

I'm not sure if you're aware.. but unions are made up of blue collar workers. You're suggesting that unions are supporting something that would ultimately destroy them.

[Magiver]

Proof of intimidation is the burden of the employer; presumably if they're watching the shop floor like a hawk they won't need to rely employee testimony to make their case.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You’re just repeating what a union president (Olentzero) said above . Intimidation is the burden of the person who is being intimidated. Companies are not the police and have no input on union tactics outside of work. As I stated before, I’ve had union organizers take down my license number because I turned down their request to sign a card. It’s a matter of safety when presented with such tactics to sign the card and then vote no in a secret ballot.


What about the opposing side of a union campaign? Do you assert that the employer's efforts against organizing a union are 100% free of intimidation and coercion? Are those solely the purview of union organizers? I’ve never been intimidated by a company but you’re advocating intimidation as a quid pro quo. The example I gave of union intimidation was in stark contrast to the company meeting where the financial situation was outlined with information available to anyone who could read a stock report. We lost money for over 10 years and towards the end it was measured in billions. That was hardly intimidation to point out the obvious.

According to an Economic Policy Institute briefing (http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp182.html) from 2005, if every worker who wanted union representation actually got it, the unionization rate among the workforce in general would have been 58%. In 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/data-bytes/union-membership-byte/union-rates-increase-in-2007/), the total unionized share of the workforce was 12.1%.
The Economic Policy Institute is funded by labor/union based organizations ( the Democracy Alliance, the Center for American Progress and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

[Olentzero]

So, this IS a real-life situation, since one employee represents 50% of the non-contractor workforce.Well, let me apologize completely for the snark, then. It would have been nice to have this background in your first post!

I guess from a specifically technical point of view, if one said 'yes' and the other said 'no' then there'd be no union, since the goal of 50% +1 hasn't been reached. The 'no' voter's concerns and arguments ought to be taken seriously and addressed by the union organizer if the voter's willing to talk; otherwise I guess there's no union.

[Olentzero]

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You’re just repeating what a union president (Olentzero) said above. Sorry for repeating myself. I do that when I'm trying to make a point.

I’ve never been intimidated by a company but you’re advocating intimidation as a quid pro quo.No, I most certainly am not. I'm asking you, the one who is so quick to point out that the Employee Free Choice Act will open the gates to unfettered union intimidation, if you are absolutely sure that company intimidation against union organizing has never occurred. I don't question the veracity of your personal experiences, but as the old chestnut goes: the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

The Economic Policy Institute is funded by labor/union based organizations ( the Democracy Alliance, the Center for American Progress and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).And therefore what?

[Olentzero]

One last point I meant to address:

Companies are not the police and have no input on union tactics outside of work.

You're right, but the point is not whether they have input on those tactics or not; the point is if they can prove those tactics were used to the NLRB, the card check results are thrown out and election by secret ballot is used. Companies may not be the police but they'll certainly take that role on as far as their workforce is concerned. Especially if there's any hint of union activity.

[spazattak]

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You’re just repeating what a union president (Olentzero) said above . Intimidation is the burden of the person who is being intimidated. Companies are not the police and have no input on union tactics outside of work. As I stated before, I’ve had union organizers take down my license number because I turned down their request to sign a card. It’s a matter of safety when presented with such tactics to sign the card and then vote no in a secret ballot.
Why didn't you say so before? That'd scare me too. Man.. what'd he have.. like one of those ball-point pens? Those things are dangerous.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Why didn't you say so before? That'd scare me too. Man.. what'd he have.. like one of those ball-point pens? Those things are dangerous.

So why's the union guy writing down the tag numbers ?

[Magiver]

Why didn't you say so before? That'd scare me too. Man.. what'd he have.. like one of those ball-point pens? Those things are dangerous. Your glib assessment of what it's like to have a union organizer track your vote is noted. Best of luck when it happens to you. However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side. But hey, its all good. I'm sure it was just kids.

It's easy to fling opinion anonymously and make fun of union intimidation. It's a different story when someone you don't know does it to you.

The same privacy we take for granted as part of the political process is equally important when applied to union votes.

[The Flying Dutchman]

However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side.

Just out of curiosity, what was the result of the union organizing effort in this case ?

[spifflog]

I'm not sure if you're aware.. but unions are made up of blue collar workers. You're suggesting that unions are supporting something that would ultimately destroy them.

Thanks spazattak, I'm well aware of who's who in the zoo. But, like many others, I believe this legislation is a tool of the unions. And no, I don't think the unions always have the best interest of the rank and file at heart.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Your glib assessment of what it's like to have a union organizer track your vote is noted. Best of luck when it happens to you. However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side. But hey, its all good. I'm sure it was just kids.

It's easy to fling opinion anonymously and make fun of union intimidation. It's a different story when someone you don't know does it to you.

The same privacy we take for granted as part of the political process is equally important when applied to union votes.

Ah, so a lot of your dislike for unions is based upon speculation. What was the union, by the way? Maybe you should focus your negative attention on them, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[spazattak]

Your glib assessment of what it's like to have a union organizer track your vote is noted. Best of luck when it happens to you. However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side. But hey, its all good. I'm sure it was just kids.

It's easy to fling opinion anonymously and make fun of union intimidation. It's a different story when someone you don't know does it to you.

The same privacy we take for granted as part of the political process is equally important when applied to union votes.

No one's arguing against private votes. It's time people drop that strawman.

[The Flying Dutchman]

No one's arguing against private votes. It's time people drop that strawman.

What ?!

[Olentzero]

This brings up another question... how do you know the guy (whoever he is) was writing down your tag number?

[spazattak]

Thanks spazattak, I'm well aware of who's who in the zoo. But, like many others, I believe this legislation is a tool of the unions. And no, I don't think the unions always have the best interest of the rank and file at heart.
How does that add up to you? How can you have a policy that's bad for union members but good for the unions themselves?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Your glib assessment of what it's like to have a union organizer track your vote is noted. Best of luck when it happens to you. However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side. But hey, its all good. I'm sure it was just kids.

It's easy to fling opinion anonymously and make fun of union intimidation. It's a different story when someone you don't know does it to you.

The same privacy we take for granted as part of the political process is equally important when applied to union votes.


And. This law doesn't mandate a card check. It's up to the workers to decide whether they would prefer to vote via a traditional NLRB election, or have a card check.

That's the beauty of democracy: people have the power to choose.

[spazattak]

What ?!
I'll repeat it again. The card-check isn't a vote. The secret ballot remains in-tact assuming less than half have signed statements saying they support a collective bargaining unit.

[Antinor01]

This brings up another question... how do you know the guy (whoever he is) was writing down your tag number?

Perhaps he was wrong and that isn't what happened.

Take the example of one of my co-workers. During the most recent attempt to unionize our department, a union rep showed up at her home unnanounced and uninvited. Twice. Would you consider that acceptable?

[Happy Lendervedder]

Perhaps he was wrong and that isn't what happened.

Take the example of one of my co-workers. During the most recent attempt to unionize our department, a union rep showed up at her home unnanounced and uninvited. Twice. Would you consider that acceptable?

How would you suggest union organizers organize workers?

[Antinor01]

How would you suggest union organizers organize workers?

They had already spoken to each of us during the workday multiple times. Contacting me at home is a different matter.

[Happy Lendervedder]

They had already spoken to each of us during the workday multiple times. Contacting me at home is a different matter.

So the company gave the organizers access to the worksite?

[Antinor01]

So the company gave the organizers access to the worksite?

Yes. Since I was on the clock and they decided to let them talk to us, then I was fine with that. (though it did start to get annoying after I told them several times that I wasn't interested)

[Magiver]

This brings up another question... how do you know the guy (whoever he is) was writing down your tag number? 2 people step up to your car as you're leaving work, one of them talks to you while the other stares at the front of your car and writes on a clipboad. I dunno, maybe he was a sketch artist.

[Magiver]

I'll repeat it again. The card-check isn't a vote. The secret ballot remains in-tact assuming less than half have signed statements saying they support a collective bargaining unit. The card check is not a private vote. What part of this does your brain not understand?

[Magiver]

And. This law doesn't mandate a card check. It's up to the workers to decide whether they would prefer to vote via a traditional NLRB election, or have a card check.

That's the beauty of democracy: people have the power to choose. That's not what the proposed law says. It retroactively makes the card check the vote if it exceeds 50%. The card votes are not private.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I can't speak for all unions, or even all campaigns within the same union, but every campaign director decides how and when the organizers will talk to workers. Personally, it does seem a bit excessive to housecall workers when you've got worksite access, but again this isn't an across-the-board rule for every union or every campaign.

Most employers obviously won't give worksite access to organizers, so the only way organizers can talk with workers is at home. In my years of organizing, probably 1 in 30 workers takes serious offense with an organizer showing up on their door. (Maybe 1 in 15 in states like Kentucky or rural Missouri, 1 in 50 in places like Chicago or southeast Michigan or California.)

Contrary to what many of you here think, union organizers are doing what we do because we care about middle class America. We don't get paid by the card, we don't lose money if you guys vote no. But what we do is spend 25-28 days per month away from our families, in hotel rooms, 10-14 hours per day sometimes, talking to workers in the cold and heat and rain and snow, finding out what motivates you, what you'd like to see changed about your job, what you like about your job, and then trying to explain the process of how you can make change, improve your situation, and maintain what's good at your workplace.

Do we get cranky or frustrated sometimes? Sure. But when you haven't seen your wife or your kids or your friends in three weeks, when there's a strong anti-union campaign being spearheaded by the boss who's calling you an agent of the devil, and when you have to continuously watch your Ps & Qs more than your average nuclear engineer, as both the government and company are eyeballing your every move, things can get a little stressful. For this I apologize on behalf of all frazzled organizers everywhere.

Organizers aren't getting rich. And we understand that most people don't like opening their doors to complete strangers and talking about their jobs, so we often have an uphill battle. We aren't breaking knees, slashing tires, setting garages on fire, because at the end of the day, where would that get us? At the bottom of an even steeper hill, and part of a completely impotent organization with members that don't really want to be members.

We aren't trying to fucking trick or intimidate anyone; we're trying to organize the middle class back to relevance. In case anyone's noticed, the middle class isn't doing so well right now. Is it a coincidence that union membership is at an all-time low? Lately, it's become a race to the bottom to make sure companies don't have to pay retirement and insurance to all employees-- "Look! These companies aren't giving as much to their employees! We need to lower our standards to compete!" I think this is the wrong direction to go, and that's why organizers do what the do.

Corporate interest-holders are organized, they've realized working together they're stronger-- chambers of commerce, industry groups, etc.-- for their own self-interest. They pay dues to their organizations, they vote democratically on things, they have lobbyists fighting for their interests. These corporate organizations are not looking out for the middle class. The middle class needs to organize and look out for itself. Our country did just fine when there was a high-rate of unionized workers-- better than we're doing now.

[Antinor01]

I understand that it's a rough job and trust me, I feel for you on that. But on behalf of the middle-class workers that don't want to be unionized and are content looking out for their own interests, please leave us alone when we say we're not interested.

[Happy Lendervedder]

That's not what the proposed law says. It retroactively makes the card check the vote if it exceeds 50%. The card votes are not private.

If the workers still want an election, they can have it. An election is petitioned for at 30% or more. That means if 40% sign, they can have an election. If 50% sign, they can have an election. If 90% sign they can have an election. I've been part of campaigns where a majority signed cards, and the workers then had an election. What you claim is simply not a fact.

50%-plus-one card check recognition is not a new thing. It's been happening for years, and like I said earlier, the names of people who sign a card is not public information. You can't FOIA for it. It's not available to the general public or rank-and-file. Card-check recognition also hasn't caused the collapse of workplaces, public entities, stock markets, world governments or Mt. Rushmore. It's just another option for union recognition. No less democratic than the old-school NLRB elections.

I understand that it's a rough job and trust me, I feel for you on that. But on behalf of the middle-class workers that don't want to be unionized and are content looking out for their own interests, please leave us alone when we say we're not interested.

Oh, believe me, I do. I, for one, have better things to do than keep trying to get water out of a stone. :)

[Magiver]

Corporate interest-holders are organized, they've realized working together they're stronger-- chambers of commerce, industry groups, etc.-- for their own self-interest. They pay dues to their organizations, they vote democratically on things, they have lobbyists fighting for their interests. These corporate organizations are not looking out for the middle class. The middle class needs to organize and look out for itself. Our country did just fine when there was a high-rate of unionized workers-- better than we're doing now. The first major company I worked for matched union wages and treated it's employees better than any union shop could expect. They did this by incorporating an in-house arbitration system. The difference is that fellow workers didn't put up with slackers who made more work for everybody else. It may have been the exception to corporate America but it was a great place to work.

Nobody is questioning the ability to unionize. What is under question is our right to privately vote. This is no different than voting in a political election. It doesn't affect unions in any legitimate way but it affects the people who vote.

[Olentzero]

Antinor, the difference in your attitude towards solidarity with gays and lesbians organizing to defend themselves and their rights and your attitude towards solidarity with working people doing the same thing is quite striking. How do you reconcile that?

[Magiver]

If the workers still want an election, they can have it. An election is petitioned for at 30% or more. That means if 40% sign, they can have an election. If 50% sign, they can have an election. If 90% sign they can have an election. I've been part of campaigns where a majority signed cards, and the workers then had an election. What you claim is simply not a fact. Really. Who gets to decide your privacy is void?
You cannot justify taking privacy away from a vote. EVER

[Antinor01]

Antinor, the difference in your attitude towards solidarity with gays and lesbians organizing to defend themselves and their rights and your attitude towards solidarity with working people doing the same thing is quite striking. How do you reconcile that?

The difference is that I do not live in a right to work state. If my department were to join a union, I would have no choice but to be part of it. In pursuing the right to marry, those that don't wish to marry don't have to.

It's the element of being forced to be part of it that really rubs me the wrong way. I would support a union representing my co-workers if I could opt out of it and not have to financially contribute to the union in any way. I believe that workers have the right to unionize, but those that don't wish to shouldn't have to choose between leaving their job or joining the union. I also believe that same sex couples have the right to marry, but I don't believe there should be a forced decision to do so on those that don't want to.

[Olentzero]

What is under question is our right to privately vote. This is no different than voting in a political election. It doesn't affect unions in any legitimate way but it affects the people who vote.
I'd argue that it does affect unions - namely, that the desire for union representation among working people is not matched by actual levels of union representation. The process needs to be made easier and card-check is the method to do it.

Furthermore, I think the secret ballot is more the exception than the norm - Congress doesn't operate that way; the Supreme Court doesn't operate that way; AFAICT state, county, and town councils don't operate that way either. And yet I've never really heard any arguments anywhere that say this leaves members of Congress, SC judges, or other elected officials open to intimidation by anyone. The secret ballot has its uses, but in this case it's clearly an obstacle to decision making rather than a political protection.

[The Flying Dutchman]

. Is it a coincidence that union membership is at an all-time low?
You guys are doing just fine in the civil service, including teachers. Could it be that there is no competition there ?

We live in an era of globalization, outsourcing and massive influx of unskilled labour, the latter supported by your unions themselves. Workers by and large have understand that, and realize you can do very little for them, and that their dues are wasted money. What's happened in Detroit is a disaster, and not occuring elsewhere where auto workers have freely denied union representation.

I'm all for unions though, as a counter balance to corporate greed and oppression, but I'd like to see that option available in a fair manner.



Lately, it's become a race to the bottom to make sure companies don't have to pay retirement and insurance to all employees-- "Look! These companies aren't giving as much to their employees! We need to lower our standards to compete!" I think this is the wrong direction to go, and that's why organizers do what the do.

Why lately ? Could it be that global competition with global low wages are pressuring American companies ?

[Olentzero]

It's the element of being forced to be part of it that really rubs me the wrong way.So absent that condition, would you join a union?

[Antinor01]

So absent that condition, would you join a union?

No, because I don't feel I need them. If my co-workers wished to join I would be happy to vote for them to be able to do so.

[Olentzero]

What's happened in Detroit is a disaster, and not occuring elsewhere where auto workers have freely denied union representation.You've made this assertion twice yet not backed it up with any concrete examples. Please do so.
Why lately ? Could it be that global competition with global low wages are pressuring American companies ?Why should workers have to pay for that pressure through reduced or stagnant wages and slashed benefits? How are they going to defend against that, if not through unions?

Antinor, fair enough. I think you're completely mistaken and the "I've got mine" attitude won't be of any help in these times of economic insecurity, however. And the selective display of solidarity is too divisive.

[Antinor01]

Antinor, fair enough. I think you're completely mistaken and the "I've got mine" attitude won't be of any help in these times of economic insecurity, however. And the selective display of solidarity is too divisive.

22 states have right to work laws, if the rest would do so as well then it wouldn't be a problem.

For example,

Oklahoma. Constitution. Article. 23, § 1A provides:

A. As used in this section, "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or agency or employee representation committee or union, that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of work, other conditions of employment, or other forms of compensation.



B. No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to:

Resign or refrain from voluntary membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization;
Become or remain a member of a labor organization;
Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor organization;
Pay to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments, any amount equivalent to or pro rata portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges regularly required of members of a labor organization; or
Be recommended, approved, referred, or cleared by or through a labor organization.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it essentially says that there can be a union but that each employee gets to choose if they join or not. How would that not meet my desire to not be in a union and also allow my co-workers that chose to join the option to do so?

[The Flying Dutchman]

You've made this assertion twice yet not backed it up with any concrete examples. Please do so.
Exactly what do you want me to back up?

Why should workers have to pay for that pressure through reduced or stagnant wages and slashed benefits? How are they going to defend against that, if not through unions?
By electing politicians who are against free trade and indiscriminent immigration?. How do you expect domestic manufacturers with union contracts compete with foreign low wage manufacturers ?

Do all your clothes bear union labels ?

[Olentzero]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it essentially says that there can be a union but that each employee gets to choose if they join or not. How would that not meet my desire to not be in a union and also allow my co-workers that chose to join the option to do so?Let's take a good look at the effects of these so-called "right to work" laws for a moment.

Firstly, these laws are the result of efforts by such pro-business organizations as the Chamber of Commerce - hardly a worker-sympathetic bunch.

Secondly, many of these laws carry a "free rider" clause, which state that unions must represent workers whether they pay dues or not - in short, forcing unions to provide something for nothing. It may not bring down an entire union but it could financially run individual locals, effectively eliminating union representation in individual shops.

Thirdly, such laws have a detrimental effect on wages and earnings, to say nothing of unionization rates in the states that have them. I'm taking some raw data on 2007 median incomes by state from the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/statemedfaminc.html), averaging for the entire nation, then comparing it with the average of the 22 states that have these laws and the average of the 28 states that don't. Result:

National Average Median Income: $60,447
Average Median Income RTW: $56,390
Average Median Income Other 28: $64,889

The average median income is $8,500 higher in states without these laws than in states with them, and $4,400 higher than the national average.

What about unionization rates? There are two ways we can look at this: percentage of the workforce that holds union membership, and percentage of workforce that don't but are represented by unions or similar association (this includes workers that fall under the 'free rider' clause mentioned above). 2007 data taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm).

Union membership
National Average: 11.16%
Average RTW: 6.67%
Average O28: 14.87%

Represented by unions
National Average: 12.53%
Average RTW: 8.05%
Average O28: 15.69%

Given the wider desire of workers to join unions I cited in a previous post, it's obvious that states that have 'right to work' laws on the books are even less supportive of a worker's ability to choose than states that don't. Essentially, it boils down to this: The system that allows individual workers to opt out because "I got mine" also makes it harder for their fellow workers to get theirs.

Additionally, right to work laws that allow individual workers to opt out leave those workers at a distinct disadvantage: they have to negotiate on their own with a company that's bigger, better organized, and more well-funded than they are. It forces them to choose between making a stand and losing a source of income for who knows how long. Unions may not be as big, as organized, or as well-funded as the companies, but they have one big advantage: the power to stop work, and the ultimate source of the company's profit, until workers' demands are met.

[Olentzero]

Exactly what do you want me to back up?Don't be coy. You've said twice that Detroit's current woes are the result of unions. Prove it.

Do all your clothes bear union labels ?No, but I wish they did - no matter what country they came from or who made it, immigrant or native-born. Besides, there are other equally meaningful things one can do that show support for unions.

[Antinor01]

Secondly, many of these laws carry a "free rider" clause, which state that unions must represent workers whether they pay dues or not - in short, forcing unions to provide something for nothing. It may not bring down an entire union but it could financially run individual locals, effectively eliminating union representation in individual shops.

This I would certainly not support. If you want to be represented you should join.

Given the wider desire of workers to join unions I cited in a previous post, it's obvious that states that have 'right to work' laws on the books are even less supportive of a worker's ability to choose than states that don't. Essentially, it boils down to this: The system that allows individual workers to opt out because "I got mine" also makes it harder for their fellow workers to get theirs.

Then a balance needs to be found so that both sides can have what they want. There has to be a way that those that want represented can be and those that don't want to be can opt out.

Additionally, right to work laws that allow individual workers to opt out leave those workers at a distinct disadvantage: they have to negotiate on their own with a company that's bigger, better organized, and more well-funded than they are. It forces them to choose between making a stand and losing a source of income for who knows how long. Unions may not be as big, as organized, or as well-funded as the companies, but they have one big advantage: the power to stop work, and the ultimate source of the company's profit, until workers' demands are met.

Then those workers that find that their conditions aren't working for them can join the union if they feel it would help.

[Olentzero]

This I would certainly not support. If you want to be represented you should join.Them's the breaks, friend. The right to work laws aren't a project of the unions; they're a project of the bosses and they obviously tacked on riders to make union organizing more difficult.
Then a balance needs to be found so that both sides can have what they want. There has to be a way that those that want represented can be and those that don't want to be can opt out.The unions want to represent you. The bosses don't want unions to represent you. If you don't want a union to represent you, you're giving the bosses what they want as well. It's that simple. There's no balance between them.Then those workers that find that their conditions aren't working for them can join the union if they feel it would help.Why, then, if some 58% of workers want to join unions, are only 12% actual union members? Why, again, if 58% of workers overall want to join a union, does South Carolina - a right to work state supposedly protecting workers' free choice - only have a 4% overall unionization rate? They can't join the union just like that, because the right to work laws have seen to it that they can't.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Don't be coy.
Don't be silly.
You've said twice that Detroit's current woes are the result of unions. Prove it.

Up till the economic crisis the only companies that have been in serious trouble are those companies that are saddled with the UAW on their backs.

The non union auto companies in the US are booming. They pay comparable wages and benefits. Their workers don't worry about keeping their jobs. If you don't believe me, check it out (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134773,00.html)

Besides, there are other equally meaningful things one can do that show support for unions.

Or you mean cheaper ways one can "show" support for unions.Ya ya, its okay for someone else to bear the cost of unions in the marketplace, but when it comes to your own wallet, you are satisfied to sacrifice the garment workers.

What do you drive. A Toyota ?

[Olentzero]

Or you mean cheaper ways one can "show" support for unions.Ya ya, its okay for someone else to bear the cost of unions in the marketplace, but when it comes to your own wallet, you are satisfied to sacrifice the garment workers.Right, because being an elected union official, paying dues, trying to keep it going, all that don't mean squat. :rolleyes: And a single TIME article with a single assertion, not backed up by ANY references or hard data, ain't gonna cut it here. Show me numbers. Show me research. Show me ANYTHING that indicates you've put some thought into your arguments and aren't just parroting lines from somewhere else.

[Ruken]

I'm a bit late to this party. I'll be first to admit that I know little about labor issues. I've never been in a union. I don't think any of my friends or direct family is in one. Most of what I know is from a little bit of direct personal experience, talking with friends with family members in unions, and from media coverage, all of which have been overall negative. That said, I read these topics with great interest. Thanks everyone who has posted links to external cites, although it's a bit disheartening that every survey seems to be published by a body with a preconceived notion that is being pushed.

But to the point:

I am deeply suspicious of the Employee Free Choice Act, and also since it's being discussed in recent posts, of being forced into a union when I don't want to be in one.

Starting with right-to work, I had the opportunity to join a union at my First Real Job. This would have gained me nothing other than lost pay. Oh yes, the union wanted my money. They wouldn't tell me how much though. It was all really shady, and they kept bugging me, asking me to sign a paper saying I'd abide by all the rules and regulations (which they didn't have on hand to show me) and that they could take some of my paycheck. No thanks. Just because a union may be good for some workers doesn't mean it's good for all, and I shouldn't be forced to fund it.

Note that the only pressure and bothering and decreased quality-of-life that I received was from the union. There was never a peep from "management".

In a later job in a different state, some folks wanted to start a union. Again, they were aggressive and generally detrimental to my quality of life, yet "management" was silent. How was I able to shut them up and regain some sanity? By signing up with them! If the Emplyee Free Choice Act had been in place, I would have lost this option. I would have either had to leave myself open to union harassment or risk pushing us over the 50% limit and finding myself in a union I didn't want.

What would I have gained from this act? Nothing. But I would have lost options.

[Antinor01]

Them's the breaks, friend. The right to work laws aren't a project of the unions; they're a project of the bosses and they obviously tacked on riders to make union organizing more difficult.

Then help find a way to fix it. I support your right to organize, why don't you support my right to not be part of it?

The unions want to represent you. The bosses don't want unions to represent you. If you don't want a union to represent you, you're giving the bosses what they want as well. It's that simple. There's no balance between them.

Then I guess that puts me on the bosses side, because I've never wanted a union to represent me.

Why, then, if some 58% of workers want to join unions, are only 12% actual union members? Why, again, if 58% of workers overall want to join a union, does South Carolina - a right to work state supposedly protecting workers' free choice - only have a 4% overall unionization rate? They can't join the union just like that, because the right to work laws have seen to it that they can't.

I don't know why. Can you show me a section from the law that stops or inhibits them from doing so?

[Antinor01]

Starting with right-to work, I had the opportunity to join a union at my First Real Job. This would have gained me nothing other than lost pay. Oh yes, the union wanted my money. They wouldn't tell me how much though. It was all really shady, and they kept bugging me, asking me to sign a paper saying I'd abide by all the rules and regulations (which they didn't have on hand to show me) and that they could take some of my paycheck. No thanks. Just because a union may be good for some workers doesn't mean it's good for all, and I shouldn't be forced to fund it.

That really bugged me as well, it should have been upfront instead of me having to ask the rep how much. (2% of my salary is what it would have been)

Note that the only pressure and bothering and decreased quality-of-life that I received was from the union. There was never a peep from "management".

That as well. I tried to get an opinion from someone besides the union rep and my supervisor would only say that she was not able to give an opinion one way or the other. I can honestly say that I have no clue how our direct managers felt about it. Though it did seem like upper management was in support of it, we hear all the time about the partnership between the unions and management.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Right, because being an elected union official, paying dues, trying to keep it going, all that don't mean squat. :rolleyes:
Actually means plenty. You are biased for the idea that unions are a panacea for workers since you make your living off the workers.

And a single TIME article with a single assertion, not backed up by ANY references or hard data, ain't gonna cut it here. Show me numbers. Show me research. Show me ANYTHING that indicates you've put some thought into your arguments and aren't just parroting lines from somewhere else.

I give you an article from an unbiased , neutral and well respected news organization and you rebut by challenging their integrity ? Empty headedness I'd say.

[Ruken]

The non union auto companies in the US are booming. They pay comparable wages and benefits. Their workers don't worry about keeping their jobs. If you don't believe me, check it out (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1134773,00.html)I wouldn't say they're doing spectacularly. They're certainly cutting production and jobs. But they have the ability to cut jobs, which can help a company from going under when it has to scale back severely in a time when people aren't buying.

Honda will "trim its North American output by 18,000 vehicles from its previously planned 1.43 million for this fiscal year". Not a huge number.

"Looser work rules are allowing German automaker BMW AG to lay off up to 733 employees at its Greer, S.C., plant by the end of the year. And Toyota Motor Corp said Wednesday it plans to let go at least 250 people at a Georgetown, Ky., factory in the first quarter of 2009"

The big 3 can't do that though, AFAIK.

That all said, VW, Toyota, and Kia are all building factories in the South, so it seems they're expecting to ramp up production in the US.

My cites, which unfortunately are probably not free articles from the WSJ:
Honda to Cut Production (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122726801872947807.html) November 21
South Could Gain as Detroit Struggles (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714059184542693.html) November 20

[Olentzero]

Actually means plenty. You are biased for the idea that unions are a panacea for workers since you make your living off the workers. Who said the position was paid?

[Olentzero]

I give you an article from an unbiased , neutral and well respected news organization and you rebut by challenging their integrity?No, I'm challenging yours. Instead of giving concrete support for your argument, you simply use another unsupported statement. That dog won't hunt.
I support your right to organize, why don't you support my right to not be part of it?I think that would be like asking you to support a state's right not to recognize gay marriage. I did a little thinking about your justification for supporting gay marriage but not union rights and it seems to me that you're looking in the wrong place for the dividing line. It's not about forcing gays who don't want to marry to do so (nor has it ever been); it's forcing the people who oppose gay marriage, and organize to amend state constitutions to reflect that, to accept the fact that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else. But then I really don't know your position on the issue - do you support gay marriage being granted at the federal level, or do you support the individual states being allowed to choose to recognize them or not?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Honda's timing at East Liberty was near perfect: its fuel-efficient Civic rolled off the line just as consumers were looking for ways to save on gas costs.

I notice that this sentence was seemingly overlooked by Flying Dutchman.

In all your blaming the union for the losses of the Big 3, some pertinent facts are not being discussed.

Management at the Big 3 signed those contracts with the union. They did so voluntarily. They knew that they would be paying pensions, health care, etc. to retirees. Then they failed to stay atop the market, failed at engineering decent cars, failed at engineering decent parts for their cars, and failed at constructing business models that accurately reflected the changing needs and wants of consumers.

It is not the union line worker's job to do those things. That was management's job, and management failed.

The average line worker, OTOH, continued to do the job for which they were hired: constructing automobiles based on their employer's plans.

It isn't right nor fair nor just to blame the costs incurred by management on the union workers. Management signed the contracts. If they were unfair, they should not have signed them.

[/hijack]

As for the EFCA, many posters again seem to have no idea what a union does. I am reading anecdotes from some of you without reference to particular unions. Was it the UAW that tried to strong arm you? IATSE? UNITE? ATU? CWA? What year was it? Union organizing has changed a lot in the last 40 years, and a story from 1975 might not find many similiar points with one from 2005.

Let me tell you my side of the union story.

I had an opportunity to join IATSE 631 in Orlando when I lived there in the early '90s. I told the BA that I would not become a dues-paying member until they showed me that they could help me make a better living than I could make on my own. Because of the work rules, the large # of people working through the local, and their seniority system, I never made more than a few thousand dollars a year through the local. I was able to get more work through my own contacts, and so I never became a paid member of that local.

I had no problem paying them the 2% "work referral" fee paid by all non-members, as the wages I made on union jobs were typically 10% higher than other similiar work I did in the area. I was still making more per hour, with benefits, than I did at my non-union, non-benefit work, so the 2% wasn't an issue. It was just that the quantity of work that I was able to secure through the union wasn't enough for me to join.

When I moved to Las Vegas, I signed up to work through the local here. I was also working non-union jobs, but when the union called me, I took the job. Wages through the union were 25% higher than freelance wages, and I had benefits (health care, vacation pay, annuity, pension, etc.). Working conditions were also better: more attention to safety (my line of work can include some fairly dangerous activities), coffee breaks, 1 hour lunches, and OT after 8 hours worked in a day (2x after 12 hours). It didn't take me long to become a proud member of the local.

I currently pay about 2.5% of my wages to the union. In return, they handle grievances, they handle contract negotiations (which I can vote against, as a member, if I feel the contract is not in our best interest), they offer training classes, and we offer to employers the best qualified work force in our industry in our area. We all like what we do for a living, we show up happy and eager, and we do our best to make sure that all our clients & employers get happy, qualified, motivated people working for them.

No non-union workforce can match what we do, and we do it for the same cost as a non-union workforce. Yes, you read that right. We know what our employers charge their clients for our services, and we know what non-union employers in our area charge for similiar services and they are identical. Any company will charge what the market will bear, and seek to pay his workers as little as possible: that is what employers do to maximize profit. The difference is, our contracts are signed by employers who know that with us they will have the best possible product, thus ensuring that they get repeat business. Our employers are willing to pay us a higher wage because they know that they expertise they get in return cannot be matched.

A good union is a beautiful thing.

[Olentzero]

I don't know why. Can you show me a section from the law that stops or inhibits them from doing so?
I took a look at South Carolina's right to work statutes (http://www.right-to-work.org/states/sc.htm) and you're right - there's nothing in them that says workers can't join unions. What is there, however, are laws that take away a union's ability to be an effective force for defending and protecting workers' rights. Take, for example, § 41-7-70:It shall be unlawful for any person, acting alone or in concert with one or more persons:

(2) To engage in picketing by force or violence or in such number or manner as to obstruct or interfere, or constitute a threat to obstruct or interfere, with
(a) free ingress to, and egress from, any place of employment or
(b) free use of roads, streets, highways, sidewalks, railways or other public ways of travel, transportation or conveyance.

Firstly, notice the "or" phrase I've italicized; the presence of force or violence doesn't need to be established, it can be as peaceful as a tea party and it's still illegal if you block scabs from getting in.

This is one of the biggest weapons a union can wield. Stopping work completely demonstrates, among other things, that without their labor no profit gets made. It's a real demonstration of the power workers hold in their jobs and that management would do well to seriously consider their demands.

That doesn't happen if management is able to bring in scabs to continue the work. Product rolls out, profits roll in, and the striking workers are up the creek. They either have to go find jobs elsewhere (not guaranteed to be as good) or go back to work under the bosses' conditions. They lose, and the union loses. If the union can't help them fight and win, why join in the first place?

The Taft-Hartley Act also outlaws secondary boycotts - in other words, other unions refusing to cross a union's picket line during a strike. Striking workers need all the solidarity they can get; any opportunity for the company to move product and make a profit diminishes the chance of a victory. If other unions are forced, by law, to act to break a strike, how does that help the striking union members? The deck's stacked against unions under such laws and working people can see it makes them less effective. Why join, then?

[Snowboarder Bo]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the SC statue you cite would also make nearly any demonstration illegal. If there are 8 people on a sidewalk, and I cannot get through them without weaving, it could be argued that I did not have "free use" of the sidewalk.

That would make civil rights demonstrations, marches, protests, etc. potentially in violation, and therefore illegal, too, wouldn't it?

[Olentzero]

I wouldn't be surprised if it had been used in that way.

Oh, and I really liked your previous post! Honestly, though, I think a better approach would be "We do quality work and we're worth the extra cost" rather than "We do better work for the same price". It makes it sound like the union would have its members work for lower wages if the non-union freelance price dropped.

[Antinor01]

I think that would be like asking you to support a state's right not to recognize gay marriage. I did a little thinking about your justification for supporting gay marriage but not union rights and it seems to me that you're looking in the wrong place for the dividing line. It's not about forcing gays who don't want to marry to do so (nor has it ever been); it's forcing the people who oppose gay marriage, and organize to amend state constitutions to reflect that, to accept the fact that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else. But then I really don't know your position on the issue - do you support gay marriage being granted at the federal level, or do you support the individual states being allowed to choose to recognize them or not?

The way I see it, the "union shop" is the equivalent forcing those that oppose gay marriage to accept it. An open shop or right-to-work philosophy matches my view on SSM. It allows those that want to participate the opportunity, but doesn't require anyone that disagrees to be part of it.

[Antinor01]

I took a look at South Carolina's right to work statutes (http://www.right-to-work.org/states/sc.htm) and you're right - there's nothing in them that says workers can't join unions. What is there, however, are laws that take away a union's ability to be an effective force for defending and protecting workers' rights. Take, for example, § 41-7-70:

Firstly, notice the "or" phrase I've italicized; the presence of force or violence doesn't need to be established, it can be as peaceful as a tea party and it's still illegal if you block scabs from getting in.

I would view that as protecting the people that chose not to join the union. Why should non-members be penalized because the union workers decided to strike?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I wouldn't be surprised if it had been used in that way.

Oh, and I really liked your previous post! Honestly, though, I think a better approach would be "We do quality work and we're worth the extra cost" rather than "We do better work for the same price". It makes it sound like the union would have its members work for lower wages if the non-union freelance price dropped.

Your first statement is correct, as far as my union brothers and sisters are concerned. Perhaps I wasn't clear; it was very early when I wrote that. :D

What I meant was: suppose there are two companies. Company A uses union workers. Company B uses non-union workers. Client C needs some work done, so both companies bid on the job. Both companies will charge the same amount to perform the work required for this job. Company A has a smaller profit margin on the job because it uses union workers who have negotiated a good wage for themselves. Company B will have a higher profit margin, because it's non-union employees have not been able to negotiate a consistently good wage; i.e. they pay their workers less than the union scale. Company A is ok with the smaller profit margin, because they know that Client C will be very happy with the work performed, and will come back to them the next time he is in town. This means that the union workers will get a paycheck next month (or year, whatever), while the employees of Company B will get one check, and no repeat business.

Life is about repeat business, folks.

Anyway, yeah, what I was trying to say in my first post is that we do better work for the same price to the client, because our employer pays us better than a non-union employer, which gives us incentive to do a better job, be more knowledgeable, etc. because we want people to want to continue to use our services.

With my union, and my employers, it's usually a win-win-win situation.

If you are against unions, you need to ask yourself: when do I think it would be okay to band together with people with a common interest, in order to work to secure what we believe would be best for ourselves, our families, and our communities?

No employer will give you what he feels he can withhold. Even my union brothers and sisters know that it is self-interest that keeps employers signing contracts with us, not altruism. That is why we work hard, work smart, and keep the clients coming back.

[The Flying Dutchman]

What I meant was: suppose there are two companies. Company A uses union workers. Company B uses non-union workers. Client C needs some work done, so both companies bid on the job. Both companies will charge the same amount to perform the work required for this job. Company A has a smaller profit margin on the job because it uses union workers who have negotiated a good wage for themselves. Company B will have a higher profit margin, because it's non-union employees have not been able to negotiate a consistently good wage; i.e. they pay their workers less than the union scale. Company A is ok with the smaller profit margin, because they know that Client C will be very happy with the work performed, and will come back to them the next time he is in town. This means that the union workers will get a paycheck next month (or year, whatever), while the employees of Company B will get one check, and no repeat business.

Life is about repeat business, folks.

Tell that to the workers of company A in Detroit. GM, Ford or Chrysler.

Tell that to me when I got drywall quotes for my first house I built. Company A at $10,000, Company Bs at $4000. Last time I ever invited a union company to bid.

Anyway, yeah, what I was trying to say in my first post is that we do better work for the same price to the client, because our employer pays us better than a non-union employer, which gives us incentive to do a better job, be more knowledgeable, etc. because we want people to want to continue to use our services.
Or an incentive to fuck the dog knowing the union will protect you.
[quote]

[Olentzero]

The way I see it, the "union shop" is the equivalent forcing those that oppose gay marriage to accept it. An open shop or right-to-work philosophy matches my view on SSM. It allows those that want to participate the opportunity, but doesn't require anyone that disagrees to be part of it.So do you want California to recognize SSM or not? Because if you do, you're forcing those in California who oppose SSM to accept it. Furthermore, say California recognizes it but Nevada doesn't. What happens to a California gay couple vacationing in Nevada if one partner is badly hurt and requires hospitalization? If they were in CA his spouse would have the legal right to make decisions about medical care whereas in NV that right doesn't exist.

The whole point is this: Those who oppose unions or SSM aren't just saying "We opt out" and leaving it alone. They're making it difficult for unions to organize and SSM to be recognized. That's the whole problem with the "state's rights" philosophy. It allows the bosses and the bigots to beat unions and SSM back.

[Olentzero]

Why should non-members be penalized because the union workers decided to strike?Because, simply put, the union isn't striking just for their own members. If they win, wages go up for the whole shop, either through the non-members saying "Hey, give us some of that too" to management or non-members thinking "Hey, the union won some good stuff" and joining themselves.

Striking isn't penalizing non-members - it's not like striking union employees get their full wages or have their bills deferred when they're on strike, either. Again, you're looking in the wrong place for the dividing line - it's not union workers vs non-union workers, but workers in general vs management. The company's well-organized, and as Snowboarder Bo pointed out they're trying to maximize profits through keeping wages down (among other things). Workers need organization to fight back against wage freezes and wage cuts, as well as make workplaces safer and working days reasonable. Unions were formed to do just that. Yes, non-members are going to get caught up in those fights, but it's completely wrong to view it as the unions punishing them.

[The Flying Dutchman]

So do you want California to recognize SSM or not? Because if you do, you're forcing those in California who oppose SSM to accept it....The whole point is this: Those who oppose unions or SSM aren't just saying "We opt out" and leaving it alone. They're making it difficult for unions to organize and SSM to be recognized..

Emlisting another issue into your argument only shows how bereft of merit your argument holds

That's the whole problem with the "state's rights" philosophy. It allows the bosses and the bigots to beat unions and SSM back

Ya,ya, the bosses are bigots and opposing unions means "beating back" :rolleyes:

I guess all would be well if they unionized corporate management right up to the CEO . :rolleyes:

[Antinor01]

I just don't think we're going to agree on this. I'm coming at it from the viewpoint that unions are good for some people and I support their right to join/form one. Your view seems to be that unions are the best option for everyone.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Tell that to the workers of company A in Detroit. GM, Ford or Chrysler.

As I said before, the fault is not with the workers. They did not make the decisions re: parts, design, process, materials, engineering. If Detroit designed a better car than Toyota, they would outsell Toyota. But they don't. And it's wrong to blame the line workers for decisions made by management, including signing the contracts with the UAW. That decision was made by management, and management alone.

Tell that to me when I got drywall quotes for my first house I built. Company A at $10,000, Company Bs at $4000. Last time I ever invited a union company to bid.
Surely most people realize that the stereotyping and generalizing you are doing here is completely wrong. It's the same type of argument bigots use to justify their feelings.

Or an incentive to fuck the dog knowing the union will protect you.

Obviously we live in a different world. Mine is full of people cooperating to achieve multiple goals. Yours seems to be full of people trying to get what they can for themselves with little or no regard for anyone else. Part of what unions are about is helping people realize that it doesn't have to be that way; we can all work together and all prosper.

Live better. Work union.

[scule]

There seems to be a lot of obtuseness going on in this thread. It appears that people opposed to this law are concerned about the potential for the removal of a secret ballot that it would facilitate if it is passed. This seems to be a fair and legitimate concern. All the rest of the arguments seem irrelevant to the OP.

If the law passes and unions are able to organize and gain legitimacy based on 50+1% of open ballots, then the window is open to intimidation from the union side. The fact that intimidation may occur from management's side does not invalidate this concern. It would seem to me that in any case where a vote is taken it is always better for it to be secret. This is simple protection for the people involved.

Further, it has been noted but should be repeated that intimidation and coercion can take many forms, from threats of violence to ostracization and favouritism. People who vote against a union could face these from union-favouring fellow employees and this can affect both their quality of life and their careers and earning potential. These are legitimate concerns as well.

If there really is a concern over management indiscretions and bullying in the face of unionization, it seems to me that the better course of action would be for this bill to focus on addressing those issues, rather than removing the secret ballot in certain conditions. This would be far better in for workers than opening them up to intimidation from the other side. If this passes the American worker is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place, and that will make everyone worse off in the end.

[Olentzero]

I just don't think we're going to agree on this. I'm coming at it from the viewpoint that unions are good for some people and I support their right to join/form one. Your view seems to be that unions are the best option for everyone.My main point here is that the 'right to work' system is clearly set towards discouraging union activity instead of protecting a workers' freedom of choice, since you stated earlier that you thought it should be expanded across the whole country. I certainly won't deny I'm an unashamed supporter of unions! :) And I'd love to see a 58% unionization level in this country, which is far more reflective of workers' attitudes towards unions than the current 12%; the Employee Free Choice Act is a step in that direction and I support it wholeheartedly.

scule, organizing for a union is a very polarizing issue. This thread should be example enough of that. But there's a very large difference between intimidation as an official tactic employed by unions while organizing for recognition and the individual reactions of pro-union workers to anti-union workers. The former can and should be rejected by unions and carry appropriate legal punishment (i.e. invalidating the card check results and submitting to a secret ballot). The latter can be addressed by the union in the workplace and worked against so that union members treat their brothers and sisters on the shop floor with dignity and respect. (There should also be the expectation of having the favor returned!)

One factor I think the secret ballot supporters are overlooking is this: People aren't going to refrain from discussing the union in the days or weeks preceding the vote. It's going to be pretty clear where individual workers stand on the issue and the others in the shop are going to react accordingly depending on where they themselves stand. The only way a secret ballot would protect people is if nobody discussed the issue at all so no one knew how anyone else was voting.

One last thing: Would any of you on the other side argue that the 58% support for joining a union I've repeatedly cited is a product of union intimidation?

[scule]

I don't argue that unions are polarizing, but that seems to be the case with every issue in your country (I'm from Canada, for reference). And I agree that it is most likely bad apples acting on personal interest rather than under direction of the union (or potential union) that would likely be the ones intimidating and coercing people. Further, I am well aware that people will discuss things together and you may very well know where a person stands, secret ballot or no. But, and this is the most important part in this whole debate, it is the actual vote that matters. Everything else becomes irrelevant after the votes are cast because the votes are what decide things. And if a vote is not secret, then it limits the right of a person to make a choice entirely of their own accord and opens them up to having to consider the consequences of disagreeing with others. This is a very bad thing. A vote must be free from coercion and intimidation or the result gives no legitimate mandate.

That's why I'm saying that if the real issue is not with organizing unions but with management abusing their power to topple such organization, then the bill should address this, and I think everyone here will likely agree.

[Snowboarder Bo]

There seems to be a lot of obtuseness going on in this thread. It appears that people opposed to this law are concerned about the potential for the removal of a secret ballot that it would facilitate if it is passed. This seems to be a fair and legitimate concern. All the rest of the arguments seem irrelevant to the OP.

If the law passes and unions are able to organize and gain legitimacy based on 50+1% of open ballots, then the window is open to intimidation from the union side. The fact that intimidation may occur from management's side does not invalidate this concern. It would seem to me that in any case where a vote is taken it is always better for it to be secret. This is simple protection for the people involved.
scule, you make some good points here, and you make some that we've already addressed and debunked, namely the notion that all votes (or even most) are done as secret ballots. In fact, most voting is done openly. US Senators and Representatives vote openly on the floor, as do city councils, county commisioners, state legislators, and most organizations when dealing with issues. The only time that we have secret ballots is during elections of officials, and issues that appear on those same ballots.

Further, it has been noted but should be repeated that intimidation and coercion can take many forms, from threats of violence to ostracization and favouritism. People who vote against a union could face these from union-favouring fellow employees and this can affect both their quality of life and their careers and earning potential. These are legitimate concerns as well.

If there really is a concern over management indiscretions and bullying in the face of unionization, it seems to me that the better course of action would be for this bill to focus on addressing those issues, rather than removing the secret ballot in certain conditions. This would be far better in for workers than opening them up to intimidation from the other side. If this passes the American worker is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place, and that will make everyone worse off in the end.

There is no "if". It happens, and it happens all the time. I've seen it firsthand, but you don't have to take my word for it.

Union busting is a field populated by bullies and built on deceit. A campaign against a union is an assault on individuals and a war on truth. As such, it is a war without honor. The only way to bust a union is to lie, distort, manipulate, threaten, and always, always attack. from his book Confessions of a Union Buster, 1993

We deftly used [videos and other tools] to awaken within the mostly white supervisor corps a hatred of blacks, fear of violence, contempt for women, mistrust of the poor, and, of course, a loathing for the union that brought together all those despicable elements... with a few well-chosen remarks, we tapped the fears that resided in the hearts [of the supervisors].

His book is excellent reading and is available at amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Union-Buster-Marty-Levitt/dp/0517583305/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227731279&sr=8-6), if anyone cares to educate themselves more about this issue. You could also peruse the wikipedia article on union busting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting).

If reading isn't your thing, you can watch Martin Levitt speak (http://larryhubich.blogspot.com/2007/06/confessions-of-union-buster-martin.html).

South Carolina has a special history of union busting, which continues in the 21st century.

In Aiken, South Carolina, a corporate union buster from Wal-Mart's Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters, Kirk Williams, is named for illegally threatening workers in an attempt to undermine workers' efforts to organize a union. This is the third time the NLRB has named Mr. Williams for illegal anti-worker activities around the country.

Wal-Mart illegally denied several workers their right to have co-workers witness any interviews with managers. Among other things, workers were told that the right to a witness, known in labor law as an employee's "Weingarten rights," "did not hold water at [Wal-Mart]," even though two Circuit Courts of Appeal have upheld the right.

cite (http://www.union-network.org/unisite/Sectors/Commerce/Multinationals/Wal-Mart_union_busting_operator_named_for_threatening_workers.htm)

And as a last note in this post, these words from Nelson Lichtenstein (http://local.law.umn.edu/uploads/images/6723/Lichtenstein_FinalPDF.pdf), Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara.
When the Wagner Act was drafted in 1935, its provisions provided employees in any given enterprise the right to select “representatives of their own choosing” who could speak for them in the collective negotiations with the management of the firm.11 To make sure this happened, drafter Robert Wagner inserted a section that defined a set of “unfair labor practices” of which employers, but not unions, might be held accountable.12 When conservative critics of his law complained that the Wagner Act was one-sided, the New York Senator replied that this was a “false equation.”13 The kind of “unfair labor practices” in which workers might engage- physical or verbal intimidation of their workmates, punched noses, and nasty threats- all had been illegal for centuries, since the birth of the common law itself.14 But when it came to economic coercion of the sort that shouted “You’re fired if you mess with the union,” that was almost exclusively an employer weapon, which Wagner and other labor partisans sought to proscribe.

Sought to proscribe, but sadly were unable to. The deck is stacked on the employers side both legally and economically. Labor unions do not seek to control the employer, only to make the enterprise profitable & pleasurable for all involved.

[Antinor01]

My main point here is that the 'right to work' system is clearly set towards discouraging union activity instead of protecting a workers' freedom of choice, since you stated earlier that you thought it should be expanded across the whole country. I certainly won't deny I'm an unashamed supporter of unions! :) And I'd love to see a 58% unionization level in this country, which is far more reflective of workers' attitudes towards unions than the current 12%; the Employee Free Choice Act is a step in that direction and I support it wholeheartedly.

In it's current form, it sounds like the right-to-work laws are making it difficult for those that wish to join a union and as I've repeatedly stated I believe that is wrong. I also don't see any reason that it couldn't be modified so that those that wish to join and those do not can both be accomodated.

Not sure if I mentioned this earlier, but the question no longer directly affects me. I changed positions in the company (in part because of the unionizing attempt) into a new role that would not be subject to a union anyway. So this is largely theoretical for me at this point in my career.

One last thing: Would any of you on the other side argue that the 58% support for joining a union I've repeatedly cited is a product of union intimidation?

I don't have enough information to have a strong opinion on that. It could be any number of things. It could be intimidation, it could be that 58% are well informed and genuinely believe a union is best for them, it could be that they are not well informed and have a nebulous belief that it would be better and so on. I'm just not in a position to take a stance in any direction on that question.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I don't argue that unions are polarizing, but that seems to be the case with every issue in your country (I'm from Canada, for reference). And I agree that it is most likely bad apples acting on personal interest rather than under direction of the union (or potential union) that would likely be the ones intimidating and coercing people. Further, I am well aware that people will discuss things together and you may very well know where a person stands, secret ballot or no. But, and this is the most important part in this whole debate, it is the actual vote that matters. Everything else becomes irrelevant after the votes are cast because the votes are what decide things. And if a vote is not secret, then it limits the right of a person to make a choice entirely of their own accord and opens them up to having to consider the consequences of disagreeing with others. This is a very bad thing. A vote must be free from coercion and intimidation or the result gives no legitimate mandate.

That's why I'm saying that if the real issue is not with organizing unions but with management abusing their power to topple such organization, then the bill should address this, and I think everyone here will likely agree. The bill does address this, by providing that if a majority of workers sign cards indicating their desire for a union, then there will be no period before a secret ballot where an employer has unfettered access to the workers to threaten, harass, lie, intimidate, etc.

[scule]

The bill does address this, by providing that if a majority of workers sign cards indicating their desire for a union, then there will be no period before a secret ballot where an employer has unfettered access to the workers to threaten, harass, lie, intimidate, etc.

I was under the impression that the bill would remove the process of having a secret ballot if a majority of the workers signed the cards. Just so I'm clear, is the bill stipulating that in the case of a majority signing cards, there will be a secret ballot but it will be held immediately or within a very short timeline, limiting management's ability to intimidate? Or are you saying that a majority of workers can sign the cards, removing the secret ballot as an option and thus preventing management from being able to intimidate?

If it's the former, that could be good so long as there is time to inform the workers. If the latter, then there is still the issue of intimidation and coercion from the union side. This being the case, it would still remove from the workers their right to anonymous personal voting. This must be protected, or any vote cast is suspect.

As to the point about there being other votes cast publically, those things listed are all votes cast by persons acting as representatives for a group of people (constituents, staff, whatever). Those are not individual votes, they are votes that are intended to be cast as a reflection of a collective will. As such, they must be public so that the people who are being represented by the vote can see how they are being represented.

Also, I'm well aware that management does work against unions. It goes both ways but the scales have probably tipped towards management being the bad guy overall (no cite, just a gut feeling, not really relevant anyway). That still doesn't change the fact that in principle a person should be free from intimidation and coercion in their decision-making process. If one side or the other has the ability to bully or intimidate, then that needs to be addressed, and I really don't see how removal of secret ballots accomplishes this. There have to be better ways to address the management-worker power imbalance if such exists.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I was under the impression that the bill would remove the process of having a secret ballot if a majority of the workers signed the cards. Just so I'm clear, is the bill stipulating that in the case of a majority signing cards, there will be a secret ballot but it will be held immediately or within a very short timeline, limiting management's ability to intimidate? Or are you saying that a majority of workers can sign the cards, removing the secret ballot as an option and thus preventing management from being able to intimidate?
Your second option here is correct. And it's not me saying it, that's the language of the bill(s) under discussion, just to be clear.

If it's the former, that could be good so long as there is time to inform the workers. If the latter, then there is still the issue of intimidation and coercion from the union side. This being the case, it would still remove from the workers their right to anonymous personal voting. This must be protected, or any vote cast is suspect.

As to the point about there being other votes cast publically, those things listed are all votes cast by persons acting as representatives for a group of people (constituents, staff, whatever). Those are not individual votes, they are votes that are intended to be cast as a reflection of a collective will. As such, they must be public so that the people who are being represented by the vote can see how they are being represented.This is a good point, but not totally accurate. In my union, we vote on proposals by voice vote during General Membership meetings. I can't say for sure how all other unions work, but I have been to several GM meetings for other unions, uncluding IBEW, UAW, Teamsters, LIUNA, UBC, AFSCME and AFL-CIO, and they all conduct voice votes on issues that require membership approval. It isn't just unions that hold voice votes, either. Many organizations do so.

Also, I'm well aware that management does work against unions. It goes both ways but the scales have probably tipped towards management being the bad guy overall (no cite, just a gut feeling, not really relevant anyway). That still doesn't change the fact that in principle a person should be free from intimidation and coercion in their decision-making process. If one side or the other has the ability to bully or intimidate, then that needs to be addressed, and I really don't see how removal of secret ballots accomplishes this. There have to be better ways to address the management-worker power imbalance if such exists.It isn't the removal of secret ballots that accomplishes this; it is the removal of a period where the employer has unfettered access to workers for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to intimidate, cajole, lie, etc. It is unrealistic to think, for example, that the minute a union gets 30% of workers to sign cards that a secret ballot election is held. Ballots need to be printed, NLRB oversight has to be scheduled, a determination of exactly who is eligible to vote must be done, etc. There is a lot that has to be done to ensure the integrity of the ballot process, and during that time, the employer has unequal access to the workers/voters.

I'm sure many of us would be willing to evaluate proposals to remedy the inequity of access, and I'd be happy to read and debate the merits of any other possible solution to this problem. But so far, this is the best proposal of it's kind I have heard.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Or an incentive to fuck the dog knowing the union will protect you.

I forgot to mention earlier that this is not how I view my employers, nor our clients. And anyone who does voice this type of sentiment in my local may soon find themselves unable to obtain steady work.

It is interesting that that's how you see things, tho. Says a lot.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I forgot to mention earlier that this is not how I view my employers, nor our clients. And anyone who does voice this type of sentiment in my local may soon find themselves unable to obtain steady work.


Thankyou for making my point. So that is how you treat your members who speak up against dogfuckers.

[flex727]

In fact, most voting is done openly. US Senators and Representatives vote openly on the floor, as do city councils, county commisioners, state legislators, and most organizations when dealing with issues. The only time that we have secret ballots is during elections of officials, and issues that appear on those same ballots.
There is a huge difference between an open vote of public officials & representatives and the vote of private citizens, which is most akin to the topic here.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Thankyou for making my point. So that is how you treat your members who speak up against dogfuckers.

Your response makes no sense at all.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Your response makes no sense at all.Why am I not surprised?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Why am I not surprised?

:rolleyes:

[Snowboarder Bo]

There is a huge difference between an open vote of public officials & representatives and the vote of private citizens, which is most akin to the topic here.

And I said in my post, my own experience with private citizens voting is that it is most often done openly. Secret ballot elections are far fewer in number than open votes.

As an aside, y'all do realize that there is no federally guaranteed right to vote, don't you? I'm not saying there shouldn't be one, but to talk about this bill "taking away people's right to secret ballot voting" is disingenuous, since there is no federal (the level that this bill is being debated) right to vote.

[The Flying Dutchman]

As an aside, y'all do realize that there is no federally guaranteed right to vote, don't you? I'm not saying there shouldn't be one, but to talk about this bill "taking away people's right to secret ballot voting" is disingenuous, since there is no federal (the level that this bill is being debated) right to vote.

Its in the National Labor relations Act.

Completely off topic, but perhaps you might indulge me by answering a question.

Say I'm an exceptional worker. Can the employer single me out for a pay raise over and above the union contract in order to keep me ?

[Olentzero]

Its in the National Labor relations Act.Have you actually read the NLRA (http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx) anytime recently? It does specifically mention the secret ballot as a method to be used under certain circumstances, but there is no language whatsoever defining it as an inalienable right. It merely says the NLRB is authorized to "direct an election or take a secret ballot (emphasis mine)" (29 USC § 153) when:

an employee, group of employees, or labor organization assert that (i)they have been selected by the shop employees to represent them and the employer refuses to recognize them or (ii) the current organization representing them no longer does so - 29 USC § 159 (c)(1)(A); or
the employer says one or more individuals or labor organizations claims the right to represent employees - 29 USC § 159 (c)(1)(B);
more than 30% of employees say they want to decertify the union - 29 USC § 159(e)(1);
a dispute between employer and employees cannot be settled, in order to avoid a strike, lockout, or other coercion - 29 USC § 173 (c); and
an injunction during a national emergency has failed to produce a settlement within sixty days of issuing said injuction - 29 USC § 179 (b).

In fact, 9 USC § 159 (c)(1)(B) contains further language that says the NLRB must first determine whether "a question of representation affecting commerce" exists before they even get to the secret ballot stage. I'm not sure exactly what that means ([b]Bo? Any help?) but it sounds like it allows for cases where the NLRB determines that they don't even need to go that far, and the company has to suck it up and bargain.

If you look at the Employee Free Choice Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110QxGevi::), the only affected section containing language regarding a secret ballot is § 159 (c). So while the ability to join a union has been streamlined, the secret ballot remains in place for both decertifying a union and settling disputes - and, using Bo's argument, leaving those processes just as open to intimidation by management as they were before.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Completely off topic, but perhaps you might indulge me by answering a question.

Say I'm an exceptional worker. Can the employer single me out for a pay raise over and above the union contract in order to keep me ?

Dutchman, I can't speak for all unions nor all contracts. I am not familiar with them, and have no intention of even trying to get to know the thousands of different contracts for different unions, trades and locations. I can only speak about my own local.

In my local, I can tell you that yes, an employer can and often does pay someone more than the contractually agreed upon minimum for their position in order to keep them working for that employer. The rates agreed upon in the contract are minimums, not absolutes. And as far as the union is concerned, why would we care? The employer is happy, the union worker is happy, and presumably the client hiring us will be happy. Win-win-win.

[robertliguori]

I am personally rather mystified at the comparisons to SSM being brought up here. Marriage, like unionization, should be an individual right. Individuals should be able to choose to marry (or not), and should be able to join or form a union (or not). Forcing people to join a union or get married (or preventing them from being able to do so) is a bad thing.

Now, it also seems trivially obvious to me that secret ballots provide more accurate information than non-secret ballots, especially in cases where being seen voting one way or another may have repercussions. I see absolutely no reason to refrain from an anonymous vote even if 100% of a shop signs cards. Also, I am with Antinor01 in that I am not comfortable with being forced into union membership because a majority of my co-workers wish to be in a union. I'm fine with a union requesting that my place of employment take 2% off my salary as automatic dues, as long as my place of employment is free to reply "No." and fire everyone who strikes in response.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I am personally rather mystified at the comparisons to SSM being brought up here. Marriage, like unionization, should be an individual right. Individuals should be able to choose to marry (or not), and should be able to join or form a union (or not). Forcing people to join a union or get married (or preventing them from being able to do so) is a bad thing.

Now, it also seems trivially obvious to me that secret ballots provide more accurate information than non-secret ballots, especially in cases where being seen voting one way or another may have repercussions. I see absolutely no reason to refrain from an anonymous vote even if 100% of a shop signs cards. Also, I am with Antinor01 in that I am not comfortable with being forced into union membership because a majority of my co-workers wish to be in a union. I'm fine with a union requesting that my place of employment take 2% off my salary as automatic dues, as long as my place of employment is free to reply "No." and fire everyone who strikes in response.

Why would your employer say no? Do you think they care who you give the money to after they pay you? You may have some misconceptions about what unions do and what they are about.

[Olentzero]

I am personally rather mystified at the comparisons to SSM being brought up here.There's no actual parallel; I brought it up because Antinor had another thread in which s/he (sorry, I don't know your gender!) talked about getting actively involved against Proposition 8 in CA, something I completely agree with. I had a hard time picturing how it could be possible to stand in solidarity with one group fighting to defend its rights but not in solidarity with another, larger group doing the same thing. The subject was brought up more so that I could understand Antinor's thinking rather than comparing the two.

[Antinor01]

There's no actual parallel; I brought it up because Antinor had another thread in which s/he (sorry, I don't know your gender!) talked about getting actively involved against Proposition 8 in CA, something I completely agree with. I had a hard time picturing how it could be possible to stand in solidarity with one group fighting to defend its rights but not in solidarity with another, larger group doing the same thing. The subject was brought up more so that I could understand Antinor's thinking rather than comparing the two.

Speaking of which, does my position on that make sense now? (and it's he) ;)

[Snowboarder Bo]

In fact, 9 USC § 159 (c)(1)(B) contains further language that says the NLRB must first determine whether "a question of representation affecting commerce" exists before they even get to the secret ballot stage. I'm not sure exactly what that means (Bo? Any help?) but it sounds like it allows for cases where the NLRB determines that they don't even need to go that far, and the company has to suck it up and bargain.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to look at this sooner; I had to leave the house to run Tofurkey Day errands. :D

As far as I know, your interpretation is pretty close to correct. IANAL, but AFAICT what this means is that the employer has refused to bargain and the employees & their prospective union insist that he must because they have enough people wanting their representation. At this point there is a "question of representation affecting commerce" since the employees want representation and the employer is refusing to acknowledge this.

At this point, the NLRB can look at the situation, and if they determine that a sufficient number of people want representation by the union they will then set about to direct an election.

I don't think this section applies once an election has been held, since the determination that there was a QCR (Question Concerning Representation) has already been reached prior to the vote.

Once an election has been held, if the union has prevailed, the employer is then obligated by law to negotiate in good faith with the union. This does not always happen. My own union, in more than once local in both the US and Canada, has been certified as the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) rep for Blue Man shows, and Blue Man flat out refuses to negotiate (they also refuse to negotiate with Musicians Unions, Actor's Equity Guilds, etc.). At that point the NLRB has an internal board that reviews disputes of this sort, and if that doesn't sort things out, it winds up in court or before an arbitrator.

I hope I helped clarify things, even if only a little.

[Olentzero]

Antinor - yes, a lot clearer. I still don't agree with it, but it's clearer.

Bo - well hell, I'm never going to see a Blue Man show! I see where I was incorrect in my interpretation; under current code there has to be an election if the NLRB certifies there are enough employees who said "yes" to the union. Under the Employee Free Choice Act is when the election would get skipped under 50% +1 and the NLRB sends it straight to negotiation. Yes?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Antinor - yes, a lot clearer. I still don't agree with it, but it's clearer.

Bo - well hell, I'm never going to see a Blue Man show! I see where I was incorrect in my interpretation; under current code there has to be an election if the NLRB certifies there are enough employees who said "yes" to the union. Under the Employee Free Choice Act is when the election would get skipped under 50% +1 and the NLRB sends it straight to negotiation. Yes?

No.

These lawyers can prolly 'splain the QCR better than I can. cite (http://books.google.com/books?id=YKusFQwuem8C&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=question+of+representation+in+commerce&source=web&ots=5fgaLmeDxm&sig=fMSwsmKXCQzVA32dARYeY6FpZJs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA540,M1)

When an employer and labor organization agree that the labor organization is in fact the choice of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit, that certain employees constitute an appropriate unit, and that the Act is applicable, the employer may voluntarily recognize the union without any recourse to the Board. But if the Board's processes are invoked by a representation petition, then the Board will decide whether its jurisdictional requirements are met, and, if so, whether the bargaining unit is appropriate and whether a majority of the employees has selected a representative.

If, pursuant to a petition, the regional director holds a hearing and finds that a question concerning representation exists, an election is directed and the results certified.

You are correct, AFAIK, about the current law. When the NLRB determines that there are enough employees who said "yes" to the union, and the employer has refused to accept their representative for collective bargaining, a QCR determination is made. If it is determined that there exists a valid question about who is representing the workers (do they really want to be unionized, or would the majority rather each represent themselves?), the NLRB then directs an election.

Under the EFCA, this would still be true until the percentage of signed cards supporting the union as the CBA rep tipped over the 50% mark. At that point, no election would be necessary because the majority of workers have already decided that they would like to be represented by the union at the bargaining table. Things would proceed as if, under current law, an election had been held and won by the union-minded employees, and the employer would be directed to negotiate in good faith with the designated CBA rep (union).

Again, IANAL, just a union member who strives to stay informed about relevant laws and issues.

[Olentzero]

I thought that was what I said, but clarification is always a good thing.

Again, IANAL, just a union member who strives to stay informed about relevant laws and issues.You and me both, brother.

[scule]

Ultimately, I don't think any reasonable person would argue that unions are always bad or that unions are always good. As with just about everything in life, absolutes like that are senseless. What's really at issue here, regardless of any other area where this might be the case or where related points have been made, is that in principle it is best to have a secret vote for any individual vote than one that is publically known, especially in the case where there is time preceding the vote for a person to be influenced negatively to vote one way or the other. This bill seems to remove that protection at a certain level for the American worker, and this is a bad thing. It would be better for the bill to address the disproportionate amount of power that the employer has over the employee instead. That's all.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Ultimately, I don't think any reasonable person would argue that unions are always bad or that unions are always good. As with just about everything in life, absolutes like that are senseless. What's really at issue here, regardless of any other area where this might be the case or where related points have been made, is that in principle it is best to have a secret vote for any individual vote than one that is publically known, especially in the case where there is time preceding the vote for a person to be influenced negatively to vote one way or the other. This bill seems to remove that protection at a certain level for the American worker, and this is a bad thing. It would be better for the bill to address the disproportionate amount of power that the employer has over the employee instead. That's all.

The National Labor Relations Act, first enacted in 1935, was an attempt to level the field enough for workers to be able to organize if they so chose. This bill is an attempt to bring the influence that unions and employers both have on workers/voters on an even keel. It's not as if the EFCA would give unions a month of access to workers that employers don't get.

The whole ballot thing is a red herring to focus people on something other than worker's wages, working conditions, job security, pension security, etc. And I'm not sure you're going to get many (on this board at least) to agree that "It would be better for the bill to address the disproportionate amount of power that the employer has over the employee", since that is what closed shop laws are designed to do, and many do not agree with those laws.

[gonzomax]

Unions did not hold guns to the heads of the company negotiators. Profits were huge and the workers deserve a share. Many of the perks all workers enjoy were won by unions. Overtime pay,safe working conditions, vacations and other benefits were won by them. When I was at the Big 3 ,engineering was given the same benefits the unions got to prevent white collar workers from organizing.
The health care and retirement packages are the American way. We did not want universal heath care so we provide it at work. That of course is folded into the cost of the products. That is not a union problem.
Unions made the middle class which was a buying bonanza. They were a big engine of the American society and it's buying power. Union membership has dropped commensurate with the dying of the middle class. It is not a better America now.

[flex727]

Profits were huge and the workers deserve a share.
While I agree that profit sharing is a great tool for a company to compensate employees in a way that helps align everyone's goals and actions, I think the word "deserve" is going too far. Do you also think workers should share in the losses when the company is losing money? If not, why not?

[Snowboarder Bo]

While I agree that profit sharing is a great tool for a company to compensate employees in a way that helps align everyone's goals and actions, I think the word "deserve" is going too far. Do you also think workers should share in the losses when the company is losing money? If not, why not?

How is "deserve" going too far? Please explain your reasoning.

[flex727]

How is "deserve" going too far? Please explain your reasoning.
"Deserve" meaning the employees have a right to share in the profits above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management of the company to grant it.

In my mind, the profit (or loss!) of a company belong to the owner(s) to do with as they see fit. If the employees "deserve" a share of those profits, why would they not "deserve" a share of the losses, when or if they occur?

[Happy Lendervedder]

"Deserve" meaning the employees have a right to share in the profits above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management of the company to grant it.

In my mind, the profit (or loss!) of a company belong to the owner(s) to do with as they see fit. If the employees "deserve" a share of those profits, why would they not "deserve" a share of the losses, when or if they occur?

I would say being laid off when business tanks counts as sharing the losses.

[Snowboarder Bo]

"Deserve" meaning the employees have a right to share in the profits above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management of the company to grant it.

In my mind, the profit (or loss!) of a company belong to the owner(s) to do with as they see fit. If the employees "deserve" a share of those profits, why would they not "deserve" a share of the losses, when or if they occur?

LOL

But the workers NEVER share in the profits unless the owners/management voluntarily decide to make it so. And they certainly share in the losses, in the form of layoffs, pay cuts, loss of benefits, etc. In the recent troubles that Delphi Parts has been going through, UAW workers took massive pays cuts (from $27/hr to $18.50/hr) in order to help the company stay in business and thus keep thousands of people employed.

How many execs took the same pay cut (roughly 30%)? How many execs turned down their multimillion dollar bonuses? How many turned down other perks to help keep the company afloat?

No worker ever shares in the profits of a company, as you say, "above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management". It doesn't happen.

[flex727]

No worker ever shares in the profits of a company, as you say, "above and beyond the free choice of the owners and/or management". It doesn't happen.
Glad to hear it. That's the way it should be.

[flex727]

I would say being laid off when business tanks counts as sharing the losses.
I wouldn't. Say Bob and John start a business. It makes a healthy return for awhile and all is well until a competitor comes along and grabs much of their market share. Huge losses mount up. John leaves the partnership and goes to look for another job leaving Bob stuck with all the losses to pay for out of his pocket. Did John share in the losses? I understand that John left voluntarily (to avoid paying those losses out of his pocket), unlike the hypothetical laid-off worker, but the result is the same. In the case of Bob & John, a civil lawsuit would be imminent.

You want workers to share in the profits, be immune from any liabilities, and continue receiving a regular paycheck, regardless of the situation. I'm not buying the fairness of that situation.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I wouldn't. Say Bob and John start a business. It makes a healthy return for awhile and all is well until a competitor comes along and grabs much of their market share. Huge losses mount up. John leaves the partnership and goes to look for another job leaving Bob stuck with all the losses to pay for out of his pocket. Did John share in the losses? I understand that John left voluntarily (to avoid paying those losses out of his pocket), unlike the hypothetical laid-off worker, but the result is the same. In the case of Bob & John, a civil lawsuit would be imminent.

You want workers to share in the profits, be immune from any liabilities, and continue receiving a regular paycheck, regardless of the situation. I'm not buying the fairness of that situation.

Bolding mine.

Who wants this? Who has been arguing for this? Where? On this board? In what post?

And in your example: a partner in a business can't just walk away. He owns a stake in the company. How in the world is a hypothetical involving an ownership stake in the company at all comparable to a situation involving a worker, union or not?

Or are you just ranting?

[Olentzero]

Glad to hear it. That's the way it should be.
One question: Where would the company's profits come from if it had no workers? I don't mean the current crew of workers on the shop floor, I mean no workers whatsoever.

[flex727]

Bolding mine.

Who wants this? Who has been arguing for this? Where? On this board? In what post?

And in your example: a partner in a business can't just walk away. He owns a stake in the company. How in the world is a hypothetical involving an ownership stake in the company at all comparable to a situation involving a worker, union or not?

Or are you just ranting?
I'm not ranting, just trying in earnest to answer your question regarding the term "deserve". I took it to mean that the worker had a moral right to share in the profits of the company and took exception to that. You responded by saying that no worker anywhere got profits without the free choice of the employer, but failed to address the point of the right to do so. If I misunderstood Gonzo's use of the term, then this part of the discussion is moot and I'll back off.

[flex727]

One question: Where would the company's profits come from if it had no workers? I don't mean the current crew of workers on the shop floor, I mean no workers whatsoever.
You know, I would not have the house I live in if it were not for the workers who built it. However, I do not expect them to have any ownership rights whatsoever, nor would I expect them to share in the profit, if any, when I sell it.

[Happy Lendervedder]

You know, I would not have the house I live in if it were not for the workers who built it. However, I do not expect them to have any ownership rights whatsoever, nor would I expect them to share in the profit, if any, when I sell it.

What the heck are you talking about? No one's talking about royalties, or worker ownership of a product. What does the construction of your house have to do with anything being discussed here? No one expects workers, or even the company owners for that matter, to get any money from the re-sale of any product.

But those workers do deserve to share in the profit of the initial construction of the home. Their investment of labor contributed to the construction just as much as the capital investment of the company's owner.

[Snowboarder Bo]

You know, I would not have the house I live in if it were not for the workers who built it. However, I do not expect them to have any ownership rights whatsoever, nor would I expect them to share in the profit, if any, when I sell it.

Like Happy already said, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It's not even a bad example, it's no example at all.

[flex727]

But those workers do deserve to share in the profit of the initial construction of the home. Their investment of labor contributed to the construction just as much as the capital investment of the company's owner.
Okay, fine, then where does the worker's paycheck enter into all of this?

[cckerberos]

But those workers do deserve to share in the profit of the initial construction of the home.
I disagree.

Their investment of labor contributed to the construction just as much as the capital investment of the company's owner.
This is certainly true. However, that labor wasn't given freely; it was paid for. If the workers managed to negotiate a share of the profits when selling their labor, then more power to them. Otherwise they don't deserve anything that wasn't in their contract.

[Olentzero]

You know, I would not have the house I live in if it were not for the workers who built it. However, I do not expect them to have any ownership rights whatsoever, nor would I expect them to share in the profit, if any, when I sell it.This isn't dodgeball, son, this is Great Debates. Answer my question.

[cckerberos]

If you are against unions, you need to ask yourself: when do I think it would be okay to band together with people with a common interest, in order to work to secure what we believe would be best for ourselves, our families, and our communities?
I think a lot of people who oppose unions in practice don't necessarily oppose them in theory.

I don't consider myself to be anti-union, though I often find myself supporting positions that are characterized that way. For example, I think that companies should be able to permanently replace striking workers, and I have no problem with the law quoted up-thread that made it illegal for striking workers to block the access of replacement workers to places of business. For me, the strength behind a strike should come from the quality of the workers not from the law. I see strikes as a challenge from the workers to management: "You don't want to pay us fair compensation for our labor? Then see how well you can do without us!" If management can meet that challenge, then I'm okay with that. If the labor situation is such that the striking workers can be readily replaced en masse by those willing to accept less, then the union shouldn't call a strike.

The pro-union viewpoints expressed here have been really interesting to read, as it's not something that I'm often exposed to; even when I was in a union I only met my rep once to (voluntarily) join and authorize dues payments. Regarding the EFC, most of the posts in favor seem to primarily take the position that since it strengthens unions that it's therefore a good thing, rather than actually address the issues people have with the bill itself. Removal of secret ballots isn't a "red herring," and its not comparable to the public votes by legislators and judges. It exposes workers to increased intimidation and coercion from union organizers and supporters, regardless of whether such intimidation is uncommon or insignificant in comparison to that exerted by management. The bill strengthens unions. That may be a good thing, but it doesn't do so in a manner that I approve of.

[The Flying Dutchman]

This isn't dodgeball, son, this is Great Debates. Answer my question.

He can answer that if he wishes.How about you ANSWER MY QUESTION IN POST #108 FOUR DAYS AGO, FIRST.

[Olentzero]

It exposes workers to increased intimidation and coercion from union organizers and supporters, regardless of whether such intimidation is uncommon or insignificant in comparison to that exerted by management.How, in your opinion, does it do that? And not just specific tactics, but in general - how does the removal of the secret ballot in this instance expose workers to union intimidation, when open voting overall has not demonstrated the same inevitable tendency? Why is it not comparable to public votes of other organizations?

As regards the theme of your whole post: Company management wouldn't be able to call in scabs with a minimum of fuss without laws like the one I quoted above. If there were no such law on the books, the striking workers would block the plant, and management would either have to call in the police or a private security firm to bust heads. Not exactly good for public relations. But, if there's a law on the books, the company gains an unfair advantage. "We'll call in scabs, and if you try to stop us you're breaking the law." The company can meet the challenge, as you say, precisely because the law guarantees it, not their own economic strength.

Flying Dutchman - I do apologize. The questions with real relevance keep getting in the way.

[Snowboarder Bo]

The pro-union viewpoints expressed here have been really interesting to read, as it's not something that I'm often exposed to; even when I was in a union I only met my rep once to (voluntarily) join and authorize dues payments. Regarding the EFC, most of the posts in favor seem to primarily take the position that since it strengthens unions that it's therefore a good thing, rather than actually address the issues people have with the bill itself. Removal of secret ballots isn't a "red herring," and its not comparable to the public votes by legislators and judges. It exposes workers to increased intimidation and coercion from union organizers and supporters, regardless of whether such intimidation is uncommon or insignificant in comparison to that exerted by management. The bill strengthens unions. That may be a good thing, but it doesn't do so in a manner that I approve of.

I'd be curious to know how a public vote on zoning, taking land in an eminent domain situation, school busing, or the location of a sex shop near churches and schools, or any of the zillion other divisive quality-of-life votes that a city/county/state rep must make are not comparable to the vote for or against a union. Can you explain what is it about voting on controversial matters that is different for an elected official than for a worker in a union vote?

[Snowboarder Bo]

What do you drive. A Toyota ?

LOL this is the burning question in Post #108 that you need answered?

Well, I don't know what Olentzero drives, but I have 2 vehicles: a 1978 Chevy Blazer and a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado.

[Olentzero]

Yeah, well, you know... it's a hard choice between playing a hostile game of "True Scotsman" and debating the nature of an upcoming law. I'm not sure how I'll sleep tonight.

[cckerberos]

How, in your opinion, does it do that? And not just specific tactics, but in general - how does the removal of the secret ballot in this instance expose workers to union intimidation, when open voting overall has not demonstrated the same inevitable tendency? Why is it not comparable to public votes of other organizations?

I'd be curious to know how a public vote on zoning, taking land in an eminent domain situation, school busing, or the location of a sex shop near churches and schools, or any of the zillion other divisive quality-of-life votes that a city/county/state rep must make are not comparable to the vote for or against a union. Can you explain what is it about voting on controversial matters that is different for an elected official than for a worker in a union vote?

When an elected official votes on a public matter it's important for that vote to be public because he's not voting as an individual; he's voting as an officeholder, as the representative of others. It's important that the people in whose name he is voting be able to later hold him accountable for the choices he has made on their behalf, especially when those choices are controversial. When an individual votes he has no such obligation to others; he is only accountable to himself. It is therefore his right to choose whether or not he wishes to reveal what his choice was to others.

And the public votes of other organizations have certainly shown themselves to result in the "intimidation" of those who cast votes. We just don't call that because we consider the intimidation to be legitimate in those cases. Every time an elected official casts a vote he has been subjected to various pressures (from his constituency, party leadership, interest groups, etc.) and he knows that he may suffer adverse consequences as a result of his choice. I think that if it was possible for Congressmen to cast their ballots secretly that it is quite likely that they would vote differently than they ultimately choose to do.

[cckerberos]

As regards the theme of your whole post: Company management wouldn't be able to call in scabs with a minimum of fuss without laws like the one I quoted above. If there were no such law on the books, the striking workers would block the plant, and management would either have to call in the police or a private security firm to bust heads. Not exactly good for public relations. But, if there's a law on the books, the company gains an unfair advantage. "We'll call in scabs, and if you try to stop us you're breaking the law." The company can meet the challenge, as you say, precisely because the law guarantees it, not their own economic strength.
But I view the default state as being one in which a given group is not allowed to block access to another's property. That's how it generally works, right? Protesters are allowed to picket outside of abortion clinics but not actually prevent anyone from entering. For that reason I view a law allowing unions to do what other groups aren't allowed to as granting them special rights; I view a law explicitly stating that unions aren't allowed to do so as just maintaining the status quo. I'll admit that I could be wrong regarding the various laws involved here.

Honestly, I view a union that has to physically block the access of competing workers as having already lost. They're no longer competing on the quality of their labor.

[Olentzero]

Well, firstly, it's a mistake to unconditionally condemn a tactic (in this case blocking access to property). You have to look at why the tactic is being used in the first place. So, in your abortion clinic example, the protesters are organizing to prevent women from exercising freedom of choice over their own bodies; in the union example workers are organizing in order to win their demands around wages, hours, conditions, or even union representation. The sit-down strikes in Flint in 1937 and the citywide strikes in Minneapolis in 1934 used precisely this tactic in order to make them union towns. It's a very powerful weapon and outlawing it deprives unions of a real chance at victory.

It's a mistake to see unions as competing on the quality of their labor alone. It's always in the company's best interests to keep wages down, hours up, and to cut costs on safety and other conditions even in the best economic climate. Workers need to push back against all that regardless of the quality of their labor and they need unions that haven't been unfairly disadvantaged by law to do that. Furthermore, just because scabs can or will do the work more cheaply doesn't mean they can do it better.

And you still haven't explained how a streamlined card-check process would result in greater union intimidation. You've said the same thing other opponents have: that individual workers have the right (not framed by law so far as we can tell) to the secret ballot, but you haven't given us a concrete example of how greater intimidation would result. Or is the removal of the secret ballot the intimidation you're talking about? And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?

[Ruken]

And you still haven't explained how a streamlined card-check process would result in greater union intimidation. You've said the same thing other opponents have: that individual workers have the right (not framed by law so far as we can tell) to the secret ballot, but you haven't given us a concrete example of how greater intimidation would result. Or is the removal of the secret ballot the intimidation you're talking about? And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?I already posted an example of how I signed up for a union (that was never ultimately recognized) just to put a stop to their belligerent degradation of my quality of life. I did not actually want to join the union, nor apparently did enough other people to get it started. The union knows whether a person signs up or not. They don't get to know how a person votes in a secret ballot. Having a secret ballot protected me from continued harassment. Had that option been removed, I would have either undergone continued badgering or had to risk having my sign-up push us over the 50%+1 limit, thus resulting in a union that most people didn't actually want to be in.


The sit-down strikes in Flint in 1937 and the citywide strikes in Minneapolis in 1934 used precisely this tactic in order to make them union towns. It's a very powerful weapon and outlawing it deprives unions of a real chance at victory.Is it actually legal to block my access to a job, where I have agreed to work in exchange for pay from the employer? It is legal to block people from property that you do not own?

And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?Because the other workers in the plant didn't elect me to vote for them.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Honestly, I view a union that has to physically block the access of competing workers as having already lost. They're no longer competing on the quality of their labor.

Unions are about more than "competing on the quality of their labor". They are also about ensuring that workers are treated equitably and not as fodder to be used up and thrown away. Workers aren't tools to be worn down and discarded after they have served the whims and needs of the employers; workers are human beings deserving of the same respect and dignity that the employers feel themselves deserving of. Unions make sure that happens.

I think that if it was possible for Congressmen to cast their ballots secretly that it is quite likely that they would vote differently than they ultimately choose to do.

That's called talking out of both sides of your mouth, or in simpler terms, lying. Which is why we have our representatives vote openly: to attempt to minimize incidents of TOOBSOYM. I'm curious now how you'll answer Olent's last two questions:

Or is the removal of the secret ballot the intimidation you're talking about? And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?

[Olentzero]

Is it actually legal to block my access to a job, where I have agreed to work in exchange for pay from the employer? It is legal to block people from property that you do not own?Whether it's legal or not depends on what laws are passed, and I don't think those particular laws were passed by union workers or elected officials sympathetic to their cause. That's an entirely different question, however, than whether such tactics are ethical. As I said, that depends on what you're using such tactics for. In a strike situation, I think it's quite ethical.Because the other workers in the plant didn't elect me to vote for them.But your decision, like the decisions made by elected officials, directly and immediately affects the lives of all the workers in the plant, just as their decisions affect yours. It's the kind of vote where people should be called into account.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I already posted an example of how I signed up for a union (that was never ultimately recognized) just to put a stop to their belligerent degradation of my quality of life. I did not actually want to join the union, nor apparently did enough other people to get it started. The union knows whether a person signs up or not. They don't get to know how a person votes in a secret ballot. Having a secret ballot protected me from continued harassment. Had that option been removed, I would have either undergone continued badgering or had to risk having my sign-up push us over the 50%+1 limit, thus resulting in a union that most people didn't actually want to be in.

It's not really germane to the discussion, but I'm curious about what these 2 unions you had some experience with did that resulted in "belligerent degradation of my quality of life". Did they seize your paycheck? Surround your house with lights and loud music 24/7? Force you from your car at gunpoint and make you lick the pavement? Deny you a raise? Take away your pension?

Is it actually legal to block my access to a job, where I have agreed to work in exchange for pay from the employer? It is legal to block people from property that you do not own?
Don't forget that the laws, in general, are written by those with a need for them. Laws regarding employment in the US have mostly been written by the employers. Workers had to undergo great hardships to secure even the limited rights that most people enjoy today.

It is important to remember that legality is not always an indicator of "morally right". Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others were lawbreakers, but the laws themselves were what was wrong. In early union struggles, employers hired policemen to come and bust heads... but that didn't make it morally right, and that's one reason that the unions won in the end.

Because the other workers in the plant didn't elect me to vote for them.

Nor did the other Kiwanis, BPOE, Rotary Club, etc. members vote for representatives; they vote openly at meetings. My union conducts open voice votes on contracts, expenditures, expulsions, etc. with a minimum of fuss. Most groups do. ON PREVIEW: I agree with Olentzero that this is the kind of vote where people should be able to be called into account.

[flex727]

It exposes workers to increased intimidation and coercion from union organizers and supporters, regardless of whether such intimidation is uncommon or insignificant in comparison to that exerted by management.

How, in your opinion, does it do that? And not just specific tactics, but in general - how does the removal of the secret ballot in this instance expose workers to union intimidation, when open voting overall has not demonstrated the same inevitable tendency?

And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?
I was going to try to answer the question you asked cckerberos, but you saved me the effort.

By the way, I'm not anti-union - far from it - what I am against is group intimidation used against an individual. That goes for any group, whether it be management intimidating employees to forego a union or the union intimidating employees to join. Neither group can do that if there is always a secret ballot.

[Olentzero]

All right, let me clarify my statements a little.

Why shouldn't workers who vote against a union be called to account by the other workers in the plant?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I was going to try to answer the question you asked cckerberos, but you saved me the effort.

By the way, I'm not anti-union - far from it - what I am against is group intimidation used against an individual. That goes for any group, whether it be management intimidating employees to forego a union or the union intimidating employees to join. Neither group can do that if there is always a secret ballot.

There is a secret ballot now, and it happens all the time. Didn't you see my post #133 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10500533&postcount=133) with links to Martin Jay Levitt video and books? Management has 40 days of unfettered access to workers to say whatever they want behind closed doors, and they do use that time to do whatever they feel is in their own best interest regardless of the law.

So, we have a secret ballot, and we still have intimidation. How has the secret ballot helped stop intimidation? :dubious:

[Ruken]

It's not really germane to the discussion, but I'm curious about what these 2 unions you had some experience with did that resulted in "belligerent degradation of my quality of life". Did they seize your paycheck? Surround your house with lights and loud music 24/7? Force you from your car at gunpoint and make you lick the pavement? Deny you a raise? Take away your pension?Well they certainly didn't block me from going to work. AFAIK they didn't do anything illegal.* But like you said, that doesn't matter in terms of right or wrong. Their behavior was sufficient such that I sought to end it. Lack of a secret ballot would have removed my method of doing so.

*Not that I know the law so well. Their safety violations may have been illegal. I don't know who imposed those, and I don't know if their violations counted as illegal.


Don't forget that the laws, in general, are written by those with a need for them. Laws regarding employment in the US have mostly been written by the employers.I need the law to protect my right to work under conditions that I have agreed upon with my employer, and to keep third parties from interfering.

It is important to remember that legality is not always an indicator of "morally right". Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others were lawbreakers, but the laws themselves were what was wrong.Agreed.
In early union struggles, employers hired policemen to come and bust heads... but that didn't make it morally right, and that's one reason that the unions won in the end.If the union is preventing me from working, I sure as hell hope that the police step in and makes some arrests. How is it right for anyone to prevent me from working?


Nor did the other Kiwanis, BPOE, Rotary Club, etc. members vote for representatives; they vote openly at meetings.The behavior of private clubs that people freely join is hardly relevant.

Why shouldn't workers who vote against a union be called to account by the other workers in the plant?Because coercion, intimidation, harassment, and retaliation for this private decision is wrong. It's wrong when the employer does it. It's wrong when the union does it. And it's wrong when other employees do it. Secret ballots protect workers from degradation of their quality of life from those who would punish them for making the "wrong" decision.


I ask this question:
Is a card-check a more reliable measurement of worker sentiment than a secret ballot?

[The Flying Dutchman]

LOL this is the burning question in Post #108 that you need answered?

Well, I don't know what Olentzero drives, but I have 2 vehicles: a 1978 Chevy Blazer and a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado..

Good on you. I can't call you a hypocrite. By the way, I drive an 84 Ford 250 and an 87 Ford Ranger.

[The Flying Dutchman]

All right, let me clarify my statements a little.

Why shouldn't workers who vote against a union be called to account by the other workers in the plant?

Well you've nailed the crux of the issue haven't you ? The very question by a union representative sends chills down my spine. No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote. Especially by those who vote against their vote.

[cckerberos]

Well, firstly, it's a mistake to unconditionally condemn a tactic (in this case blocking access to property). You have to look at why the tactic is being used in the first place.
I disagree completely. An unethical tactic continues to be unethical even when used in the pursuit of a worthy goal.

It's always in the company's best interests to keep wages down, hours up, and to cut costs on safety and other conditions even in the best economic climate. Workers need to push back against all that regardless of the quality of their labor and they need unions that haven't been unfairly disadvantaged by law to do that. Furthermore, just because scabs can or will do the work more cheaply doesn't mean they can do it better.
I agree that workers should try to push for the best working conditions and benefits that they can. But when union members don't have anything to bring to the bargaining table other than higher costs, I can't support shaping the laws to make them irreplaceable. I do want workers to get everything they deserve, but I don't want companies to have to act as agents of welfare. That's why I really liked Snowboarder Bo's description of his union. "We cost more, but we're worth it" is a great stance to take.

And you still haven't explained how a streamlined card-check process would result in greater union intimidation. You've said the same thing other opponents have: that individual workers have the right (not framed by law so far as we can tell) to the secret ballot, but you haven't given us a concrete example of how greater intimidation would result. Or is the removal of the secret ballot the intimidation you're talking about?

In my opinion it would likely just take the form of harassment and shunning in most cases. In a few cases, discrimination following successful unionization or physical threats. I've never worked a factory floor, so why knowledge is limited, but I don't expect that it would become a huge menace in practice; my objection is more in principle. The practical reasons presented for eliminating the secret ballot have not been enough to overcome that objection.

And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?
This is a much more worthwhile approach. It's good to be able to get past the earlier arguments that this bill wasn't actually getting rid of secret ballots or that a worker's vote is the same as that of a public official.

For me, it's simply because I view secret ballots as an essential part of a free society. I believe in the right to privacy, especially political privacy. Secret ballots mean that when there's a dispute that each side can act freely with the reassurance that the minority will not be subjected to the revenge of the majority afterwards. I view this as being as important as freedom of speech or freedom of association. That a proposed piece of legislation calls for eliminating this protection in the name of "free choice" is as Orwellian an act as anything put forward by the Bush administration.

I don't believe that just because one's vote affects another that that means the other has a right to know what the vote was. I don't think that one worker has any obligation towards other workers when placing his vote unless he's chosen to taken them upon himself willingly. For that reason I don't think he should have to hold himself accountable to his co-workers.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Well they certainly didn't block me from going to work. AFAIK they didn't do anything illegal.* But like you said, that doesn't matter in terms of right or wrong. Their behavior was sufficient such that I sought to end it. Lack of a secret ballot would have removed my method of doing so.

*Not that I know the law so well. Their safety violations may have been illegal. I don't know who imposed those, and I don't know if their violations counted as illegal.

Which still doesn't tell me what I asked: what specifically did they do that you consider "belligerent degradation of my quality of life"? Talking to you? Shaking your hand? Did they put a gun in your mouth? Write your name down on a clipboard? I'm curious, is all.

I need the law to protect my right to work under conditions that I have agreed upon with my employer, and to keep third parties from interfering.

But you don't have that right. You have no right to work under any conditions except those the employer is willing to give you. That's why we have unions. Your employer can decide to take away or reduce any or all of your compensation, and you have no choice in the matter: take it or leave it. Can you make unilateral decisions concerning your compensation, working conditions, etc. and then just inform your employer that that is how it's going to be? You cannot; for most people the workplace is a one way street. Employer: my way or the highway.

If the union is preventing me from working, I sure as hell hope that the police step in and makes some arrests. How is it right for anyone to prevent me from working?

That isn't at all what I was talking about. The police were used to assault organizing workers. In fact, sometimes the military was called out, on American soil, to use or threaten to use force against American citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1912_Lawrence_Textile_Strike_1.jpg).

Go read about the Haymarket Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Massacre), the Bay View Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_Tragedy), the Hacienda Luisita Massacre* (video, 6:41) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAGcA9ZIxNg) or the history of trade unions in the US, the UK and elsewhere. It isn't pretty, and for the most part it isn't the unions/workers that commit violence. I'm sure you can find some examples, but they won't involve the workers calling in trained, armed soldiers with orders to shoot to kill unarmed men, women & children.

The behavior of private clubs that people freely join is hardly relevant.

How is your place of employment not a private club that people freely joined? Are you forced to work there?

Because coercion, intimidation, harassment, and retaliation for this private decision is wrong. It's wrong when the employer does it. It's wrong when the union does it. And it's wrong when other employees do it. Secret ballots protect workers from degradation of their quality of life from those who would punish them for making the "wrong" decision.

No, the secret ballot does not. It gives employers 40 days to say and do whatever they want, as Martin Levitt makes clear in his books & interviews. Google "union busting" if you want to see what others say about the practices of management when faced with possible unionization of their workforce. The playing field isn't level, and it doesn't tilt at all towards the workers/organizers.

I ask this question: Is a card-check a more reliable measurement of worker sentiment than a secret ballot?

It is a more reliable measurement of worker sentiment before management has a chance to intimidate or threaten a worker, yes.



*this was in the Philippines, but a) it illustrates that bad shit still happens today at the instigation of the employer with the cooperation of the State and b) it involves American companies (Dole & Nestle, among others).

[Snowboarder Bo]

No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote.

You seriously believe this? :dubious:

No one? Ever? In any situation? EVER? EVER?

:confused:

[The Flying Dutchman]

You seriously believe this? :dubious:

No one? Ever? In any situation? EVER? EVER?

:confused:

That's what I said. Can you provide me with a situation where you believe a person's vote should be held accountable? Oh wait, if the vote is against a union?

[Snowboarder Bo]

That's what I said. Can you provide me with a situation where you believe a person's vote should be held accountable? Oh wait, if the vote is against a union?

Sure I can: in the US Senate, the US House of Representatives, the County Commission meetings, City Council meetings, zoning department meetings, union General Membership meetings, union Executive Council meetings, the SCOTUS, NLRB dispute settlements, civil and criminal juries, the United Nations and the UN Security Council, NATO, prison parole board meetings, American Idol, the Olympics (and other sports competitions), school boards.... in fact, it seems that most voting is done openly, and accountably. And the EFCA would not do away with secret ballots (as has been said many times already), it would only do away with ballots when a majority have already publicly stated their desire for union representation.

Yet you feel that, and I quote, "No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote".

According to you, all the votes I mentioned above should be done in secret, so that no one may ever be held accountable. What political philosophy is that, again?

[The Flying Dutchman]

According to you, all the votes I mentioned above should be done in secret, so that no one may ever be held accountable. What political philosophy is that, again?

In each and everyone of the situations you've cited, the person who votes publicly has chosen an office which requires public accountablity. They didn't have to take on the office if they didn't want to stick their necks out.

The non-union worker however, chose a non union job. He did not choose to be accountable to a union. All he should be accountable to is his employer for his work and his/her spouse.

[Ruken]

Which still doesn't tell me what I asked: what specifically did they do that you consider "belligerent degradation of my quality of life"? Talking to you? Shaking your hand? Did they put a gun in your mouth? Write your name down on a clipboard? I'm curious, is all.The first things that come to mind: Mostly, they interfered with my ability to do my job, simply by creating an unwanted distracting while I was trying to work, and thus posing a physical danger to myself (and themselves) and causing me to need to stay at work longer than I would have liked. They would not leave when asked, or ignored. They got up in my face yelling (they did not, however, touch me). They followed me home twice. They were a major source of frustration until I realized that I could just shut them up by signing, then simply vote "no" later. Thus, the card check was not an accurate measure of my sentiment. Apparently it wasn't for everyone else either, despite high sign-up rates.

Surprisingly enough, they stopped spamming my inbox when I asked them to. They also never got my phone number, which was fine with me.

In the first job, there weren't any safety issues (they were trying to get me to join some music union), but their badgering interfered with my warm-up time, and thus with my work quality. They eventually left me alone when I told them I was leaving the job in a few months, and what possibly could they offer me. Although they still tried feeding me some line about "being part of the whole...it's like a family..." I pictured the ghostly kids in The Shining. "Come plaaay with usssssss"

I probably would have joined that union if I'd thought the job were a long-term prospect, but I knew from the start that it wasn't. They even had special rates for young folks (although they still wouldn't tell me what those were :rolleyes: .)

Now you may find this sort of behavior acceptable, but I didn't like it. It was a significant source of stress and lost time, and I don't think a law that opens others to it is a good thing.

But you don't have that right. You have no right to work under any conditions except those the employer is willing to give you. That's why we have unions. Your employer can decide to take away or reduce any or all of your compensation, and you have no choice in the matter: take it or leave it. Can you make unilateral decisions concerning your compensation, working conditions, etc. and then just inform your employer that that is how it's going to be? You cannot; for most people the workplace is a one way street. Employer: my way or the highway.If the employer and I have an agreement, I have a right to carry out my side of it. I would hope that the law would protect me from other people trying to interfere with that.

That isn't at all what I was talking about. The police were used to assault organizing workers....And that wasn't what I was talking about either. I was talking about being blocked from earning wages through an agreement I made with an employer. You responded by bringing up head-busting

That said, you mentioned some pretty bad shit that's gone down, and still goes down (although less so these days, and yes, in very large part due to union action.) For anyone else reading, the union busting article on wikipedia has a bunch of links to this sort of stuff.

How is your place of employment not a private club that people freely joined? Are you forced to work there?My place of employment is not asking me to publicly vote on anything. I would not like to let my employers know whether I want to join a union or not.

No, the secret ballot does not.Please explain to me how the secret ballot DOES NOT protect me from union coercion. I've already explained how it allowed me to end the harassment I was experiencing.

If you want to change other rules, go for it. I'd support changing 40 days to 10, or 5, or whatever. I'd support absentee ballots. I'd support increased enforcement and punishment for companies that break the rules. I've heard that companies try to keep people from even casting a vote. That's bullshit that needs to be prevented. While I've never personally experienced intimidation, lies, etc., from management, I know they do occur, and should I choose to involve myself in a union, I would like to be protected from retribution. That said, I do not feel that the appropriate means of doing so is to open employees to a second source of harassment.

[Snowboarder Bo]

In each and everyone of the situations you've cited, the person who votes publicly has chosen an office which requires public accountablity. They didn't have to take on the office if they didn't want to stick their necks out.

The non-union worker however, chose a non union job. He did not choose to be accountable to a union. All he should be accountable to is his employer for his work and his/her spouse.

What does it matter to you if a person has chosen an office or not? Previously, you tried to argue that the difference was that people were elected to represent others, now your argument is that people chose the office. I don't see what difference it makes to you, since
No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote.

You even confirmed the veracity of this statement when I called you on it.

So what does it matter to you how someone got there? You don't think their votes should be public at all.

I gave you examples, and now you will try and split hairs when your position is already quite clear: no accountability for anyone, ever.

[The Flying Dutchman]

So what does it matter to you how someone got there? You don't think their votes should be public at all.

I gave you examples, and now you will try and split hairs when your position is already quite clear: no accountability for anyone, ever.

Given that you broadened the scope of my statement beyond what I had intended, I amended it. Can't you accept that ?

[Olentzero]

If the employer and I have an agreement, I have a right to carry out my side of it. I would hope that the law would protect me from other people trying to interfere with that.And if your employer unilaterally changes the terms of that agreement? Take Bo's earlier example of the car company slashing wages by 30%. That could, for instance, wipe out an individual auto worker's ability to save any money after the bills are paid. How would you, as an individual unrepresented by a union, take action to restore the agreement to its original terms? Or would you claim your "right" to fulfill the agreement on its new terms, no matter how financially damaging the conditions may be?I ask this question: Is a card-check a more reliable measurement of worker sentiment than a secret ballot?Given the poll I cited earlier that puts support for union representation at about 58% of the total American workforce, compared to the overall unionization rate of 12%, I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to find a system less reliable as a measure of worker sentiment than the secret ballot.I do not feel that the appropriate means of doing so is to open employees to a second source of harassment.As has also been noted before, if the employer can document union intimidation in the process leading up to the card check, the results are declared invalid and it goes to a secret ballot. Any union worth its salt is going to realize very quickly that anything with even the faintest whiff of intimidation about it is going to threaten their efforts.An unethical tactic continues to be unethical even when used in the pursuit of a worthy goal.I'm in complete agreement. Our difference of opinion lies in what we consider ethical. The source of the bosses' profits is the labor power of the worker, and it is highly ethical to demonstrate that point to them through withdrawing it completely until demands are met.

[Ruken]

And if your employer unilaterally changes the terms of that agreement? Take Bo's earlier example of the car company slashing wages by 30%. That could, for instance, wipe out an individual auto worker's ability to save any money after the bills are paid. How would you, as an individual unrepresented by a union, take action to restore the agreement to its original terms? Or would you claim your "right" to fulfill the agreement on its new terms, no matter how financially damaging the conditions may be?I'm not sure what this has to do with a union physically blocking my employment, which I maintain is wrong and should be illegal if it's not. I certainly have not stated that union representation can't prevent unexpected wage cuts. I'm not saying unions are bad. I even said I would have joined one under different circumstances, despite their ridiculous behavior.

Given the poll I cited earlier that puts support for union representation at about 58% of the total American workforce, compared to the overall unionization rate of 12%, I'd argue that you'd be hard pressed to find a system less reliable as a measure of worker sentiment than the secret ballot.I did not read the whole page you cited, but right at the start it states: "Given a choice between a union and no representation, 32% of nonunion workers reported that they would vote for a trade union in a representation election." I searched for the number 58; it does not appear. You may have gotten the cites mixed up. But anyway, the numbers I did pull do in fact show that union representation is lower than the % of non-union workers who would like representation. That said, since 50% of workers in a company need to want union representation in order for it to occur, and only 33% of non-union workers actually want it, I'm not at all surprised that these non-unionized workers remain non-unionized.

As has also been noted before, if the employer can document union intimidation in the process leading up to the card check, the results are declared invalid and it goes to a secret ballot. Any union worth its salt is going to realize very quickly that anything with even the faintest whiff of intimidation about it is going to threaten their efforts.Do you (or anyone else) know where I can find out what counts as "intimidation" (from any involved party)? I have a sneaking experience that the behavior I experienced is perfectly legal. But as stated earlier, that doesn't make it right. I would still prefer to avoid intimidation, legal or not, from both employer and union. If employers continue to intimidate (which it seems they do), then we need better laws addressing that, not laws that remove a way for me to decrease intimidation from another party.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Given that you broadened the scope of my statement beyond what I had intended, I amended it. Can't you accept that ?

I broadened the scope of your statement? WHAAAAAAAT????

No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote.

How did I broaden that? I even asked you to confirm that you meant what it said, and you did. NO ONE. EVER. SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY VOTE. That's what you said.

Will you now just admit you were wrong, that some people should be held accountable for how they vote, or will you continue to accuse me of somehow twisting and bending your words?

[The Flying Dutchman]

I broadened the scope of your statement? WHAAAAAAAT????

This is pathetic. You have to edit my statement in order to characterize it ?



How did I broaden that? I even asked you to confirm that you meant what it said, and you did. NO ONE. EVER. SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY VOTE. That's what you said.

You broadened the scope of what I thought we were talking about AFTER THAT.

Will you now just admit you were wrong, that some people should be held accountable for how they vote,...
I already answered that.

or will you continue to accuse me of somehow twisting and bending your words?

Look who's talking.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Do you (or anyone else) know where I can find out what counts as "intimidation" (from any involved party)? I have a sneaking experience that the behavior I experienced is perfectly legal. But as stated earlier, that doesn't make it right.

Intimidation is is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. (wikipedia, but its the same as I found elsewhere)

There is no legal definition of what actions constitute intimidation, AFAIK. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I would still prefer to avoid intimidation, legal or not, from both employer and union. If employers continue to intimidate (which it seems they do), then we need better laws addressing that, not laws that remove a way for me to decrease intimidation from another party.

scule said much the same thing
That's why I'm saying that if the real issue is not with organizing unions but with management abusing their power to topple such organization, then the bill should address this, and I think everyone here will likely agree.

and I replied to him as I would to you
The bill does address this, by providing that if a majority of workers sign cards indicating their desire for a union, then there will be no period before a secret ballot where an employer has unfettered access to the workers to threaten, harass, lie, intimidate, etc.

This is the best option so far. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it's the best solution that I've seen to date. If you think have a better one please put it out there. I'm always keen to look at new angles, new perspectives, new ideas. Like the man said, it's easier to change an idea than a belief. Put yer proposal on the table and let's dig into it and find the meat.

[Snowboarder Bo]

This is pathetic. You have to edit my statement in order to characterize it ?

I did not edit any of your statement. The complete sentences are yours, and I did not alter them in any way.

You broadened the scope of what I thought we were talking about AFTER THAT.

I broadened nothing. You said "no one, ever" and then confirmed that you meant "no one, ever". Those are your words.

I already answered that.

No, you did not. I never saw where you wrote "I was wrong. Sometimes people should be accountable for their votes." You still have not said or written that, so as far as I know, you still think that No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote.

If you now agree that sometimes people should be accountable for their votes, please just say so. then we can go back to discussing the issue at hand.

[Ruken]

Why not do away with the waiting period and just have an immediate secret election? I would not object to that, so long as the secret election is preserved in all cases.

[Olentzero]

I'm not sure what this has to do with a union physically blocking my employment, which I maintain is wrong and should be illegal if it's not.Company actions like a 30% wage cut are what spark strikes. Strikes win if they stop work completely - that includes keeping scabs off the floor. Companies know this very well, which is why - especially in "right to work" states - they've passed laws making this tactic illegal. Unions therefore lose a very powerful, very effective weapon in the struggle and are that much weaker because of it.I did not read the whole page you cited, but right at the start it states: "Given a choice between a union and no representation, 32% of nonunion workers reported that they would vote for a trade union in a representation election." I searched for the number 58; it does not appear. You may have gotten the cites mixed up.Point 2 in the article, bolding mine:2. Workers want unions more than ever before. The proportion of workers who want unions has risen substantially over the last 10 years, and a majority of nonunion workers in 2005 would vote for union representation if they could. This is up from the roughly 30% who would vote for representation in the mid-1980s, and the 32% to 39% in the mid-1990s, depending on the survey. Given that nearly all union workers (90%) desire union representation, the mid-1990s analysis suggested that if all the workers who wanted union representation could achieve it, then 44% of the workforce would have union representation. The rise in the desire for union representation since then suggests that the share of the nonunion workforce wanting union representation in 2005 was 53%. These results, in turn, suggest that if workers were provided the union representation they desired in 2005, then the overall unionization rate would have been about 58%.

Union share of workforce: 12%, of whom 90% desire union representation.
Non-union share of workforce: 100% - 12% = 88%, of whom 53% desire representation.

So (.12 x .90)+(.88 x .53) = .574, or about 58%. QED.Why not do away with the waiting period and just have an immediate secret election? I would not object to that, so long as the secret election is preserved in all cases.Secret elections can't be called at will, especially in cases like these. As Bo pointed out, they need time and careful preparation (like general elections) before they can be held. Card check, on the other hand, can be done in a matter of days (I'd be surprised if it took more than a week) and the results are quickly verifiable.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Why not do away with the waiting period and just have an immediate secret election? I would not object to that, so long as the secret election is preserved in all cases.

Tell you what: seeing as how tomorrow is Monday, I'll see if I can't get ahold of some people at the NLRB and ask them about the waiting period, why we have it, why it's so long, etc.

I think I know the answers, but I'd rather check with people who's job it is to know the answers.

[Olentzero]

Now that's some Straight Dopin' I can respect!

[The Flying Dutchman]

If you now agree that sometimes people should be accountable for their votes, please just say so. then we can go back to discussing the issue at hand.

No I do not agree. Not sometimes but at all times should officials be held accountable for their votes when acting in an official capacity.

Officials must be held accountable to a constinuency.

A shop floor worker, a citizen voting in a civil election etc. should only have to be accountable to himself.

Is that so hard to understand ?

[Discordia]

Well, firstly, it's a mistake to unconditionally condemn a tactic (in this case blocking access to property). You have to look at why the tactic is being used in the first place. So, in your abortion clinic example, the protesters are organizing to prevent women from exercising freedom of choice over their own bodies; in the union example workers are organizing in order to win their demands around wages, hours, conditions, or even union representation. The sit-down strikes in Flint in 1937 and the citywide strikes in Minneapolis in 1934 used precisely this tactic in order to make them union towns. It's a very powerful weapon and outlawing it deprives unions of a real chance at victory.

It's a mistake to see unions as competing on the quality of their labor alone. It's always in the company's best interests to keep wages down, hours up, and to cut costs on safety and other conditions even in the best economic climate. Workers need to push back against all that regardless of the quality of their labor and they need unions that haven't been unfairly disadvantaged by law to do that. Furthermore, just because scabs can or will do the work more cheaply doesn't mean they can do it better.

And you still haven't explained how a streamlined card-check process would result in greater union intimidation. You've said the same thing other opponents have: that individual workers have the right (not framed by law so far as we can tell) to the secret ballot, but you haven't given us a concrete example of how greater intimidation would result. Or is the removal of the secret ballot the intimidation you're talking about? And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?

This post is just disturbing.

1) The reasons a tactic is used has no relation to whether it is ethical. At all.
2) Stop pretending you know best for everyone, if people want unions they should be able to form them, if they don't then tough shit. Not everyone agrees with you.
3) Stop evading the simple question. What benefit do open ballots serve in this case? Your inability to see how they can result in intimidation is sad, but not really of consequence. If you cannot come up with any advantages to them, then there's no reason to have them whether or not you have an imagination.

Oh, and this:

And why shouldn't a worker who votes against a union in a workplace - an issue that affects all the workers in a plant, not just him or her alone - be called to account for that vote?

Totally.fucked.up.

ETA: Random question, there are places in the USA, where if 51% of a company votes to join a union, everyone has to join or resign? That's incredibly fucked up if so...

[Snowboarder Bo]

ETA: Random question, there are places in the USA, where if 51% of a company votes to join a union, everyone has to join or resign? That's incredibly fucked up if so...
Hey, Discordia, welcome to the thread! Great to have you!

Please go read the other 4 pages of the thread, so that you know more about the subject under discussion. It will make your comments appear more relevant, since your last bit there seems to show that you might not know what in the hell we are talking about. :rolleyes:

Your "simple question" has been answered many times, including a couple of times on this very page.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Totally.fucked.up.


Thankyou for bring us back to this most disturbing rhetorical question by a union representative. Even Snowboarder Bo has a problem with it as he seems to have attempted a smokescreen to distract everyone from this statement.

[Snowboarder Bo]

No I do not agree. Not sometimes but at all times should officials be held accountable for their votes when acting in an official capacity.

Officials must be held accountable to a constinuency.

A shop floor worker, a citizen voting in a civil election etc. should only have to be accountable to himself.

Is that so hard to understand ?
It's not hard to understand at all. Why didn't you say so in the first place? :dubious:

[Snowboarder Bo]

Thankyou for bring us back to this most disturbing rhetorical question by a union representative. Even Snowboarder Bo has a problem with it as he seems to have attempted a smokescreen to distract everyone from this statement.

No, I did not attempt a smokescreen. Or a diversion. The question, as I pointed out just above, has been answered several times in this thread, including on this page.

Please stop ascribing motives and innuendos to me. I am quite capable of speaking clearly on my own. After all, it didn't take me half a dozen posts to go from

No one, ever, should be held accountable for how they vote.
to
Not sometimes but at all times should officials be held accountable for their votes when acting in an official capacity.

Officials must be held accountable to a constinuency.

A shop floor worker, a citizen voting in a civil election etc. should only have to be accountable to himself.

That talent is yours alone.

[Olentzero]

Stop pretending you know best for everyone, if people want unions they should be able to form them, if they don't then tough shit. Not everyone agrees with you.I'm not pretending anything. 58% of the workers in this country want union representation; 12% of them actually have it. Obviously the current setup, including the "right to work" laws in 22 states, is not allowing people who want to join unions to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act is a step towards making it easier for workers to join a union. A worker who votes for or against joining a union isn't making just a personal decision; though s/he wasn't elected to office like a US senator, that vote s/he cast has direct effect on the lives of the men and women s/he works with and s/he should therefore be held accountable for that decision. Being held accountable is not intimidation.

[treis]

Company actions like a 30% wage cut are what spark strikes. Strikes win if they stop work completely - that includes keeping scabs off the floor. Companies know this very well, which is why - especially in "right to work" states - they've passed laws making this tactic illegal. Unions therefore lose a very powerful, very effective weapon in the struggle and are that much weaker because of it.Point 2 in the article, bolding mine:



Hold on a second. The Unions don't lose any weapon here. In general, no one has the right to stop me from going to work. If some guy tried to stop me from going to work tomorrow because he thought I was the anti-christ, or something, then, depending on what he was doing, would either be arrested or otherwise made to let me pass. If you think Unions should have the right to physically bar access to a work place than you are granting them an extraordinary right. Preventing them from doing so isn't depriving the Unions of anything, it's refusing to grant an extraordinary right.

[Olentzero]

Laws forbidding the denial of access to a workplace were passed as a response to unions employing that tactic in order to win strikes. They hadn't been on the books before then. Furthermore, the companies have every right to stop you from going to work for whatever reason they deem sufficient. There is where the 'extraordinary right' lies.

[treis]

Laws forbidding the denial of access to a workplace were passed as a response to unions employing that tactic in order to win strikes. They hadn't been on the books before then.

I'm not talking about any specific law. I'm talking about what would happen if someone tried to block me from going to work, or any place else that I have a right to be at.


Furthermore, the companies have every right to stop you from going to work for whatever reason they deem sufficient. There is where the 'extraordinary right' lies.

Uh, no they don't. No company can stop me from going to work. Obviously they can stop me from working at that company, but I can freely go to work anywhere else I please. There is no comparison here.

[Ruken]

Tell you what: seeing as how tomorrow is Monday, I'll see if I can't get ahold of some people at the NLRB and ask them about the waiting period, why we have it, why it's so long, etc.

I think I know the answers, but I'd rather check with people who's job it is to know the answers.That would be very cool, thanks. I forgot that the feds are involved. That's not a bad thing, I guess (?), but they're probably slow.

Olentzero, I have no idea how I missed that. Maybe I searched for 68 or something, dunno. It does seem a bit incongruous with the numbers I posted from the same article.

Assuming this thread continues, I'm probably not going to be posting much more, as I've got a LOT of work to do before the next round of holidays. Thanks for posting all the links everyone.

I'd be interested in reading a separate thread on work stoppages and such, since that seems to be a popular hijack in this thread. Probably wouldn't have much time to post though.

Maybe I'll be back. Depends on how much procrastination I need :cool:

[Olentzero]

I'm not talking about any specific law. I'm talking about what would happen if someone tried to block me from going to work, or any place else that I have a right to be at.There's the confusion, then. I'm talking about strikes and the tactic of blocking scabs from entering the workplace, not the right of free access in general.

[treis]

There's the confusion, then. I'm talking about strikes and the tactic of blocking scabs from entering the workplace, not the right of free access in general.

I know, and that's my point. Preventing unions from employing that tactic isn't depriving them of anything, because they never had that right in the first place. Unions don't "lose" anything in case because it's something they never rightfully held.

[Olentzero]

Olentzero, I have no idea how I missed that. Maybe I searched for 68 or something, dunno. It does seem a bit incongruous with the numbers I posted from the same article.It's not incongruous at all. Firstly, that 32% figure you quoted is the percentage of non-unionized workers, not the whole American workforce. Secondly, that figure is from the mid-1990s study, not the 2005 study; the more current figure is 53%.

So if we take a little side trip into algebra, and give ourselves the two conditions

x + y = 1 (the sum of the unionized and non-unionized workforce is 100% of the workforce)
.53x + .9y = .574 (what percentages of each section add up to 57.4%)

since x = 1 - y, we can substitute, distribute, and commute:
.53(1-y) + .9y = .574
.53 - .53y + .9y = .574
.37y = .044

Division yields
y = .119

Which was the approximate percentage (11.9%) of the workforce represented by unions in 2005. No incongruity.

[Olentzero]

I know, and that's my point. Preventing unions from employing that tactic isn't depriving them of anything, because they never had that right in the first place. Unions don't "lose" anything in case because it's something they never rightfully held.Unions did have that right (to stop work at a particular plant and prevent scabs from entering during a strike, not to block people from getting to work just because they felt like it) and they exercised it. The laws specifically forbidding that tactic were passed as a result of them using that tactic as was their right, which they asserted through its practice. They were deprived of that right by laws which conversely do nothing to curb employer's rights to stop employees from going to work on their premises for any reason they deem sufficient. Like lockouts, for example.

[treis]

Unions did have that right (to stop work at a particular plant and prevent scabs from entering during a strike, not to block people from getting to work just because they felt like it) and they exercised it. The laws specifically forbidding that tactic were passed as a result of them using that tactic as was their right, which they asserted through its practice. They were deprived of that right by laws which conversely do nothing to curb employer's rights to stop employees from going to work on their premises for any reason they deem sufficient. Like lockouts, for example.

They never had that right. The fact that they did it isn't evidence of that right. It's evidence that they were willing to break the law to get what they wanted. The businesses, as the lawful owners of their property, always had the right to deny access to anyone they wanted to. Just as you do with the property you own.

[Magiver]

I'm not pretending anything. 58% of the workers in this country want union representation; 12% of them actually have it. Obviously the current setup, including the "right to work" laws in 22 states, is not allowing people who want to join unions to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act is a step towards making it easier for workers to join a union. A worker who votes for or against joining a union isn't making just a personal decision; though s/he wasn't elected to office like a US senator, that vote s/he cast has direct effect on the lives of the men and women s/he works with and s/he should therefore be held accountable for that decision. Being held accountable is not intimidation.
Being intimidated is intimidation. Voting privacy prevents this as it has been pointed out over and over again. What is so hard to understand about this? How would you like it if people who DIDN'T want a union blocked your way in/out of the parking lot, treated you like dirt at work, followed you home and disturbed your family? What if a company hired a group of "consultants" to do this to you? Seriously, how hard is to understand the concept of privacy?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Being intimidated is intimidation. Voting privacy prevents this as it has been pointed out over and over again. What is so hard to understand about this? How would you like it if people who DIDN'T want a union blocked your way in/out of the parking lot, treated you like dirt at work, followed you home and disturbed your family? What if a company hired a group of "consultants" to do this to you? Seriously, how hard is to understand the concept of privacy?

But that's the point Magiver: companies still do harass people trying to unionize. Go watch Martin Jay Levitt, read his books, google "union busting" and read what you find. Companies do this stuff. The privacy of the voting booth doesn't deter them. (And I already provided links to some of this stuff in an earlier post. I made it easy for you.)

Now why don't you look up "union organizing" and tell me how many former union organizers have 'fessed up that they employ similiar tactics.

The current laws are not working. They need to be changed. The EFCA is the best proposal out there, and I'm willing to bet that very few of the people posting here have even bothered to read it themselves.

[Magiver]

The current laws are not working. They need to be changed. The EFCA is the best proposal out there, and I'm willing to bet that very few of the people posting here have even bothered to read it themselves. the current laws work just fine. Anyone wanting to unionize can vote without fear of reprisal. Anything contrary to a private vote invites intimidation by any and all.

[Snowboarder Bo]

the current laws work just fine. Anyone wanting to unionize can vote without fear of reprisal. Anything contrary to a private vote invites intimidation by any and all.

Did you read or listen to Martin Levitt?

[Magiver]

Did you read or listen to Martin Levitt? I read the disjointed post about him on Wiki.

You haven't addressed the real world examples of union intimdation on this thread.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I read the disjointed post about him on Wiki.

Hmmm. I dont remember linking to a post about him on wiki. And I can't find one when I search wiki for either Martin Levitt or Martin Jay Levitt. Could you please link to that article? Thanks.

You haven't addressed the real world examples of union intimdation on this thread.

Actually, I have. Several times. Mostly to ask for more specifics from people than "belligerent degradation of my quality of life". It's hard to address or assess what happened with such vague statements.

Do I condone violence in union organizing? Nope. Do I condone threats, intimidation, harassment in union organizing? Nope. Have I ever seen a union do these things while organizing? Nope.

It makes little sense for an organization based on mutual cooperation to strong-arm workers into taking their side. Unions want people to cooperate to achieve goals, and we know that the most committed people are those that join voluntarily, not those conscripted into the ranks.

Have I seen employers lie, intimidate, harass, fire, threaten workers during organizing campaigns? Yep. Have I seen historical evidence, as recent as 2 years ago of employers and government colluding to threaten and even kill workers attempting to organize? Yep. I even posted links about it, including a video about the Hacienda Luisita Massacre.

So... can I get that link to the "disjointed post on wiki" about Martin Levitt? As I said, I don't see any article listed when I search.

[Grumman]

Striking isn't penalizing non-members - it's not like striking union employees get their full wages or have their bills deferred when they're on strike, either. Again, you're looking in the wrong place for the dividing line - it's not union workers vs non-union workers, but workers in general vs management.
This is absolute nonsense. If you're willing to sacrifice your own income to make a point, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to prevent other people from working just because you say it's in their best interests.

[Olentzero]

They never had that right. The fact that they did it isn't evidence of that right.Would you say the same thing about what Rosa Parks did? That was a much clearer case of law-breaking, since the laws were already on the books.It's evidence that they were willing to break the law to get what they wanted.Let me say this again: The laws were passed AFTER the tactic was first employed AS A RESPONSE to the use of that tactic.. If there were no laws on the books at the time, what law were they breaking?

[Olentzero]

This is absolute nonsense. If you're willing to sacrifice your own income to make a point, that's your prerogative, but you have no right to prevent other people from working just because you say it's in their best interests.Unions aren't individuals acting on their own initiative, unions are groups of individuals acting as one because the majority agrees the action is in their best interests.

[treis]

Would you say the same thing about what Rosa Parks did? That was a much clearer case of law-breaking, since the laws were already on the books.

I would say that being treated equally by the government, regardless of race, is a natural right.



Let me say this again: The laws were passed AFTER the tactic was first employed AS A RESPONSE to the use of that tactic.. If there were no laws on the books at the time, what law were they breaking?

Depending on what they actually did, anything from trespassing to assault.

[Magiver]

Hmmm. I dont remember linking to a post about him on wiki. And I can't find one when I search wiki for either Martin Levitt or Martin Jay Levitt. Could you please link to that article? Thanks.

So... can I get that link to the "disjointed post on wiki" about Martin Levitt? As I said, I don't see any article listed when I search. You ask twice in the same post. Kinda needy aren't yah. When you google his name and wiki you get a 1 paragraph blurb under union busting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_buster). Must be a real important person to get so much attention. :rolleyes:

You have not presented a valid reason to relinquish the safety of voter privacy. This safety extends to union, company and employee harassment.

[Snowboarder Bo]

You ask twice in the same post. Kinda needy aren't yah. When you google his name and wiki you get a 1 paragraph blurb under union busting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_buster). Must be a real important person to get so much attention. :rolleyes:

You have not presented a valid reason to relinquish the safety of voter privacy. This safety extends to union, company and employee harassment.

In my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of a majority a US senators and representatives, and in the opinion of the President-elect of the United States, there is good reason to pass the EFCA.

And according to the numbers Olentzero has shown us, it seems a majority of the American working public has seen a valid reason to enact the EFCA.

Guess you're on the losing end of this one, if it comes up to a vote.

Oh, and reading a one paragraph quote from Martin Levitt in an article about union busting is not the same as actually following the multiple links I gave in post #133 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10500533&postcount=133). You even told me

I read the disjointed post about him on Wiki.

but the article on union busting, IMO, could hardly be called a post about him. It's one paragraph... by him. How is that about him? I can't see where you made much effort to find out information, but you sure do have your talking points down pat. Good luck with that.

[Magiver]

but the article on union busting, IMO, could hardly be called a post about him. It's one paragraph... by him. How is that about him? I can't see where you made much effort to find out information, but you sure do have your talking points down pat. Good luck with that. The WIKI article was more indepth than the videos you linked which was a bunch of bullshit. He was paid to say he was a union buster but he gave no information regarding his efforts.

[Snowboarder Bo]

The WIKI article was more indepth than the videos you linked which was a bunch of bullshit. He was paid to say he was a union buster but he gave no information regarding his efforts.

LOL nice try... /golfclap

[Olentzero]

I would say that being treated equally by the government, regardless of race, is a natural right.Rights don't come from Nature. They come from the society that we humans build, either when they are given or (more frequently) when they are demanded, exercised, fought for, and then given.Depending on what they actually did, anything from trespassing to assault. Blocking access to a workplace can be done without setting one foot on company property, and done defensively. So while your scenario is plausible, it's not inevitable.

[Magiver]

LOL nice try... /golfclap
Those videos are a joke. He says nothing on them.

And you have yet to provide a logical argument for giving up voting privacy. I have given personal examples of intimidation as have others. This intimidation is something that can be practiced by unions, companies and other employees. There is no justification whatsoever for giving up this privacy.

[Magiver]

Rights don't come from Nature. They come from the society that we humans build, either when they are given or (more frequently) when they are demanded, exercised, fought for, and then given.Blocking access to a workplace can be done without setting one foot on company property, and done defensively. So while your scenario is plausible, it's not inevitable. People who truly want a union have access to union facilities which can prevent a company from stepping one foot in.

[Olentzero]

So those 53% of non-unionized workers I've cited numerous times don't really want a union because they don't have representation by now?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Those videos are a joke. He says nothing on them.

And you have yet to provide a logical argument for giving up voting privacy. I have given personal examples of intimidation as have others. This intimidation is something that can be practiced by unions, companies and other employees. There is no justification whatsoever for giving up this privacy.

LOL Repeating yourself doesn't make you right.

[treis]

Rights don't come from Nature. They come from the society that we humans build, either when they are given or (more frequently) when they are demanded, exercised, fought for, and then given.Blocking access to a workplace can be done without setting one foot on company property, and done defensively. So while your scenario is plausible, it's not inevitable.

It's unclear to me how you would block access to a company without violating some sort of law. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[gonzomax]

It is a sad and dangerous time ahead for the American workers. A couple decades ago the newspapers successfully killed unions. Now kids grow up and never hear a positive story about unions . I meet young guys in their 20s who hate unions and can not say why. They just know that they can get validation almost anywhere.
It has been well planned and carried out . Unions are almost gone now. Their political power is diminished. American workers will learn the cold hard facts soon enough.
No single worker has any power. Every worker can be replaced. They can tell you what they want to pay and what benefits they feel like giving. They can take them away at will. If that is a better world to you enjoy it. I feel sorry for our future.
Companies moved off shore to get away from,higher wages,pollution control and safety rules etc. They wanted to have the conditions that existed in America before unions. They got them. It is a great future for us. It is exploitation for the Chinese and Indonesian workers. Child labor is having a big comeback. That is correct. Companies should be able to do whatever they want.

[Magiver]

It's unclear to me how you would block access to a company without violating some sort of law. Perhaps you can enlighten me. A union hall would be private property. They can deny access to anyone they want.