Probably the exact same thing the union would say if the employees would be better off without a union. Basically, a bunch of BS to support their side of the argument.
Except, of course, that no matter how much BS they throw at you, the company never knows how you voted. The union supporter, under this law, will make his (potentially BS) pitch then stare at you while you decide what your vote is going to be.
I’m not sure I get how Bernie Madoff ever had a dog in the fight. Were his staff on the verge of deciding whether to unionize?
Thats a good question about Madeoff. And I cannot answer it. All I know is what Maddow played on her show which was Madeof on a conference phone call organized by Bank of America. He railed pretty strongly against Employee Free Choice.
It seems to me that lots of very anti-union folks are ignoring the reality that employers use the current law to play dirty pool and do every single thing they can including firing pro-union workers before the election, hiring anti-union new workers in advance of the election, seeking postponents of the election date to a time of their liking and other devices they employ to simply “win”.
What you end up defending is NOT the sanctity of the secret ballot but the fraud of a sham election that is carried out to the advantage of the company.
Why can’t we have your sacred secret ballot election under these conditions:
***triggered by the same 30% petition signatures that it is today
*** held no later than 21 days after the petitions are turned in
*** all employees who were employees as of the date the petitions were turned in are the only eligible voters
that would be a great reform in and of itself
And they could pay each employee a million dollars a year. :rolleyes: That doesn’t address the fact that they ARE taking away the secret vote in some cases with this vote which opens up the real possibility of union or co-worker intimidation. I’ve been the target of this already. This bill is in support of the union thuggery who paid the politicians to draft it.
Exactly. That leaves the common man exposed to union threats. This is nothing but third world politics where your vote is open to attack.
Because that would make it harder for unions to pressure workers to vote them in?
Snarky answer aside, why not have rules like this? I like these rules. They attack some of the shenanigans pulled by employers, but maintain the sanctity of an anonymous vote. Does your third rule also include employees fired after the petition submission date? (I think it should)
I don’t understand the opposition to secret ballots. If the rationale is that it gives companies more time to “bust” the unions then fix that problem, perhaps by limiting the time between the tallying of card checks and the secret vote.
And, of couse, anyone who supports a labor union is a psychopathic thug.
The idea is for the card check to replace the elections. If a majority affirms the status quo via Card Check, then there isn’t any need for a ballot. The companies want to force a ballot regardless.
But why do you need to replace the secret ballot? What does the open card check have in its favor except making it easier for pro-union voters to get their way?
One of the things that will probably emerge in the months ahead is some sort of effort by blue dog Dems and a few Republicans to find a middle ground. It could very well be that reform of the antiquated rules surrounding the secret ballot elections are what will be changed.
and - to cheesteak who asked,
I would place a prohibition on any employee being fired during that 21 period unless for some crime in which charges are filed. 21 days goes pretty fast.
No, it affirms the ability to intimidate someone into signing a card.
How? How are they going to “intimidate”? Fear of violence? Glowering and brow-beating? How, precisely, is your alleged intimidation to be effected?
Are you really asking that?
You spend 8 hours a day with your coworkers; many people socialise outside hours with them too. They can easily make your life miserable if they take against you, and can ostracise you without too much effort.
And thats before anything illegal happens.
I wrote about my experience with union intimidation here. Not once did “management” intimidate me.
You don’t have to be psychopathic to have a significant effect on a person’s choice to sign or not sign.
#1 - The request to sign is coupled directly with the union supporter’s pitch for a union. There is no alternate pitch for no-union, no time to “think it over”, just a request to sign.
#2 - Deciding not to sign means you have to tell someone, to their face, that you think they are wrong about the benefits of a union. This is someone you work with, spend many hours a day with, and hope to spend many years working with, and you are put on the spot to publicly disagree with them on a workplace topic they are passionate about.
#3 - If the unionization effort fails, union supporters will look at you as a traitor who denied them their desired outcome. If it succeeds, you will be a person who didn’t help the cause, but is getting the bennies on other people’s efforts.
Refusing to sign is a guaranteed way to sour the relationship with your coworkers, by making the petition a replacement for the vote, it places far too much importance on the public petition, and the public pressure to sign.
If you can’t see how a public vote puts pressure on the voter to go along with the union, there’s no point in continuing the discussion, because you are not discussing a workplace populated with human beings.
The card check aspect of the EFCA pretty much flips the anti-union arguments on their head. Anti-union groups commonly defend the current union election system by pointing out that coercion and threats on the part of the employers are illegal. Therefore, we don’t need to change the system, they reason. We just need to enforce the law. Well, if the EFCA passes as proposed, pro-union folks can simply point out that coercing other workers to sign the cards is also illegal. So there’s nothing to worry about, we can just enforce the law.
Of course, both views are wrong. Laws that prevent these kinds of coercive tactics are generally pretty bad at doing so. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is more risk of employer-employee coercion or employee-employee coercion. All else being equal, you’d think the party with real power (the employer) would pose the greater threat of coercive tactics. But this need not be a hypothetical question. Many states recognize card check elections for unionization of public sector employees. Is there any evidence in those places of the abuses suggested in this thread? Because the abuses on the other side of the ledger are well-documented. Check out this study, for example [PDF warning]. It documents the extremely widespread use of illegal or just close-to-illegal tactics employed to bust unions under the current system.
I’m willing to be persuaded, but given the evidence that employer-employee intimidation is a real problem that would be partly solved by the card check system, I’d like to see some evidence that employee-employee intimidation would be worse.
Let’s also keep in mind that the secret ballot for political elections only goes back about a hundred years. It was put into place during the Reconstruction in part as a means of disenfranchising illiterate voters. The secret ballot is probably a good idea in political elections, but let’s not dress it up as a cornerstone of all democratic decision-making. It is not. Indeed, the secret ballot is even newer when it comes to workplace elections. It has been the sole means of union recognition under the NLRA only since the 1950s.
How would it be solved by the open card check that can’t be solved by a secret ballot? The only answer I can come up with is that it allows union intimidation to balance out management intimidation.
The election process is usually long and drawn out, giving the employers ample time to intimidate and harass workers, practices which are commonplace. An election also often requires known election organizers who put themselves at greater risk. Card check is faster and can be carried out with much less management involvement or knowledge until the time of certification.
If the process is too drawn out, why not get rid of the card check and go straight to a secret ballot?