I think you misunderstand. Card check and secret ballot are two alternative means of forming a union. At present, employers need only recognize the latter.
Actually, I think I understand it all too well.
You say that the process is too drawn out but if I read you correctly you’re saying that the new law would require management to respect secret ballot and the card check. How is this simplifying matters? Why not focus the attention on the drawn-out process?
It simplifies matters by allowing employees to choose card check instead of a drawn-out election. If they don’t think the election will be problematic with their particular employer, perhaps they will choose that. It will be their choice.
And again, it isn’t just the length of the process. The election process is necessarily more tied to management since the election has to be planned with them, and necessarily requires pro-union forces to stick their necks out by organizing the election.
This is a false choice, nobody would ever choose an election over the check card , especially since you still have to get 30% before an election is even possible.
And for the second time, WHICH employees get a choice here? It certainly isn’t the anti-union employee, there aren’t any “no-union” check cards for them to sign. There isn’t any way for them to force an election.
In answer to your prior post, it’s not simply intimidation, it’s influence. The check card process necessarily means that only the pro-union message is getting out. Pro-union workers are passing the word, asking other workers directly to sign the cards. For fucks sake, why do you think telemarketers make money? It’s because people are loathe to say “no” and disappoint the person they’re talking to. Add in the fact that the person is a coworker who you will interact with 2,000 hours a year, and the pressure to please goes way up.
It avoids wasting time and resources and prevents the copmany from trying to intimidate workers and rig the elections.
I’ve been intimidated by management at more than one job about what happens to people who even say the word “union.”
So you’re in favour of a genuine secret ballot, then?
All those “anti-union” workers are basically hypothetical constructs – fictive rhetorical devices – imaginary…either that or they’re morons.
Fuck no, I’m in favor of union intimidation.
Is it not reasonable to assume that union organizers are not attracted to futile endeavors? Which is to say, if they go to seek unionization in a workplace, they most likely have good reason to believe their efforts will be rewarded. Which is to say that, most likely, they already know that a solid majority of the workers favor a union. Duh.
Otherwise, all this “intimidation” by co-workers (glowering, brow beating, hiring Pinkertons…) becomes ridiculous, doesn’t it?
And if that solid majority exists, then a procedure that makes that will manifest sooner rather than later is more just, is it not?
Of course, its possible, I suppose, that the unions might insert themselves into a situation wherein the workers glow with perfect harmony with management, which is ever attentive to their needs. Which means that unions are eager in insert themselves and spend huge amounts of money and effort for a fight they will most certainly lose.
I think that’s unlikely. I think union organizers arrive on the scene with a pretty good idea where things stand in terms of the workers stance towards unionization. There are plenty enough worksites where unions can win easily, why would they waste money and effort where they are likely to lose, at least until all the low hanging fruit is gathered?
And here we have the real meat of the pro EFCA “argument”. Apparently, we should not even require polling employees, we should just sign them all up to unions right away (and start garnishing part of their paycheck) since everyone wants unions, and unions are all rainbows and puppy dogs.
You’re not interested in eliminating employer intimidation, or having a fair vote, you just want the union to happen.
Of course I’m interested in eliminating employer intimidation. That’s what unions are for.
And there’s nothing unfair about Card Check.
Boy, he’s got you there, Dio! He’s employing rock solid rhetorical devices, even “quotation marks”! When insinuation is grounded on undeniable innuendo, you’re pretty much toast.
Here’s the thing – if people are really concerned that peer pressure is going to influence people to vote pro-union, doesn’t that assume that the majority of workers are already pro-union? And if the majority of workers want to unionize, then what’s the problem?
If the majority does NOT want to unionize, then wouldn’t the peer pressure go the other way? How is it that a minority could intimidate a majority? If most people don’t want unions, then it’s the guys with the cards and the petitions that are going to get the dirty looks, isn’t it?
Are there times when unions do not stand up for the best interests of their members, or at least do not provide good value for the dues paid into them?
From time to time employees in a workplace vote to decertify a union - what are we to make of this, if unions are so clearly the way to go?
Peer pressure is when a pro-union coworker is standing directly in front of you asking for your signature, and your choice is to sign, or tell your coworker that you are against the union he wants.
An anonymous vote allows our fictional anti-union worker to vote the way he wants without having to alienate his pro-union coworkers. Why are you against that?
Are there times when management does not care about the best interests of its employees, or does not adequately compensate them for their labor or protect their jobs?
It is far more often the case that employees want to unionize.What are we to make of this if abject servility to management is the way to go?
No, peer pressure requires numbers. If a guy goes around asking people to sign up for a ballet class or else he’s going to tell everyone else you don’t do ballet, that’s not peer pressure. If the majority oppose a union, there is no peer pressure.
I don’t accept the assertion that people who don’t sign the cards are in any danger of being alienated, but that can’t happen to anyone who’s in a majority anyway, so the secret ballot isn’t going to change the outcome.
What prevents anti-union or undecided employees from pushing for an election? And if you’re right that in practice it will be the pro-union forces that choose election or card check, why is that bad?
I’m not denying that employees have influence over other employees. The question I asked is whether that influence is worse than the coercion which is avoided by card check. I find your analogy to telemarketers less-than-persuasive. And I find influence born of the fact that people are loathe to say no less pernicious than influence born of bribes and threatened firing. Get back to me when you have some evidence that rivals that which I posted. There are plenty of places that use card check in the US and Canada. Have there been no studies of its terrible effects?
I like to think I’m a pretty smart guy, and I am staunchly anti-union. The prospect of programmers unionizing sends shivers down my spine. How would you like to have you programmer tell you that he is only qualified to write java code, and that troubleshooting the network is someone else’s job?