Bernie Madeoff & Employee Free Choice Act

[Deeg]

@begbert2

Supposing that there existed mechanisms to poll the workers secretly so that validated numbers without worker names attached could be submitted to the company, at which point the company could try to negotiate concially terms. I don’t see why the company needs to know more than the fact that there is sufficient support for a union before it decides how to act.

I’m totally on board with keeping the worker names hidden. Just as I believe that open card checks are open to intimidation I believe that an open vote could as well.

@begbert2

They should be excluded enough that the vote is able to be taken unimpeded, though. They shouldn’t be allowed to pursue their interests by shipping in scab voters, for example.

I agree that the vote should be unimpeded but I disagree about replacement workers. A company should be allowed to hire what it considers to be the most efficient workers, just like the workers should be allowed to find the best-paying job.

What I want is a process as neutral as possible. The union gets to make their case, the company gets to make theirs. I don’t want any laws that allow either group to intimidate the voters. I believe the open card check fails that test.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@begbert2

Supposing that there existed mechanisms to poll the workers secretly so that validated numbers without worker names attached could be submitted to the company, at which point the company could try to negotiate concially terms. I don’t see why the company needs to know more than the fact that there is sufficient support for a union before it decides how to act.

They should be excluded enough that the vote is able to be taken unimpeded, though. They shouldn’t be allowed to pursue their interests by shipping in scab voters, for example.

There is no “supposing”. At no time does the company get a list of names of people who voted for the union, or who signed cards requesting union organization. It does not happen that way.

The cards are reviewed and certified by the NLRB; at no time does the employer get to see them. If he did, what would stop him from harassing those workers, or outright firing them?

ETA: I see a lot of ignoarance about how union organizing works, and what unions do for their members, in this thread. I would encourage many of you to read the other EFCA thread I linked to previously, if only to learn how it works, and what unions are about.

[begbert2]

@Snowboarder_Bo

There is no “supposing”. At no time does the company get a list of names of people who voted for the union, or who signed cards requesting union organization. It does not happen that way.

The cards are reviewed and certified by the NLRB; at no time does the employer get to see them. If he did, what would stop him from harassing those workers, or outright firing them?

ETA: I see a lot of ignoarance about how union organizing works, and what unions do for their members, in this thread. I would encourage many of you to read the other EFCA thread I linked to previously, if only to learn how it works, and what unions are about.

Well, I meant “supposing” there was a mechanism that was able to push an entire polling process, including a secret vote, and not just a card check (which I see as fodder for union and especially co-worker intimidation, especially as the cutting off points are approached but not yet met) completely through prior to notifying the company. Perhaps I’m confused, but I don’t think there are currently established mechanism for making a real vote happen without the knowledge of the employer. (I really don’t know anything about unions; I’m a computer programmer and we don’t unionize around here and probably never will.)

And Deeg, there’s a difference between hiring the most efficient workers and hiring people specifically to corrupt the neutrality of the vote. About the only way I can thing of to avoid the latter would be for the company not to know a vote is happening until it’s over, which (I vaguely gather) is impossible under the current rules and honestly would be very difficult to pull off under any rules (except ones that allowed the list of permitted voters to be frozen at an early stage of the process, I guess).

And I agree that open card check, alone, fails the no-intimidation test in my opinion as well. Due to considerations of expediency I don’t really mind it as a preliminary assessment, like I gather it currently is, but as the final determiner I think it’s inherently problematic to an unacceptable degree.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@begbert2

Well, I meant “supposing” there was a mechanism that was able to push an entire polling process, including a secret vote, and not just a card check (which I see as fodder for union and especially co-worker intimidation, especially as the cutting off points are approached but not yet met) completely through prior to notifying the company. Perhaps I’m confused, but I don’t think there are currently established mechanism for making a real vote happen without the knowledge of the employer. (I really don’t know anything about unions; I’m a computer programmer and we don’t unionize around here and probably never will.)

I would again refer you to the earlier EFCA thread, in particular starting around page 5 or so. You’ll find links to reference works and federal data, as well as a decent explanation of the current union election process.

Also, if you google “NLRB union election process” (linked to save you time, eh) you’ll see that there are articles from both sides of the issue, including some good explanations of the process itself, which is heavily biased towards the employer.

Dr. Gordon Lafer had this to say to Congress (PDF!, but not too large at only 12 mostly blank pages) last year:

@Dr. Gordon Lafer

Over the past four years, I have conducted extensive research measuring the extent to
which National Labor Relations Board elections match up to American standards
developed from the Founding Fathers to the present – for defining free and fair
elections. Unfortunately, I must report that NLRB elections look more like the
discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call
American.

@Dr. Gordon Lafer

In fact, there is no truly secret ballot in Labor Board elections, because supervisors are
permitted to interrogate their underlings in terms that force most employees to reveal
their political choices long before they step into the voting booth. The pressure tactics
used to force employees to reveal their political preferences would be illegal in any
election to the Senate - and we would not tolerate them in any foreign elections that
claimed to be democratic.

@Dr. Gordon Lafer

A federal commission found that on average, unions
received the voter list less than 20 days before the election.1 Even then, the NLRB
requires employers to provide workers - names and addresses - but no apartment
numbers, zip codes, or telephone numbers.

If we imagine this system being applied to Senatorial elections - where one candidate
had the voter rolls two years before election day, while his or her opponent was
restricted to a partial list and only got it a month before the vote - none of us would call this a free and fair election.

The EFCA seeks to level the playing field, so that people can exercise their right to free association without intimidation. Please check the last bit of this post from the other thread to see how the intentions of the National Labor Relations Act were thwarted early on.

And as a last note in this post, these words from Nelson Lichtenstein, 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.

[begbert2]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I would again refer you to the earlier EFCA thread, in particular starting around page 5 or so. You’ll find links to reference works and federal data, as well as a decent explanation of the current union election process.

Also, if you google “NLRB union election process” (linked to save you time, eh) you’ll see that there are articles from both sides of the issue, including some good explanations of the process itself, which is heavily biased towards the employer.

Dr. Gordon Lafer had this to say to Congress (PDF!, but not too large at only 12 mostly blank pages) last year:

The EFCA seeks to level the playing field, so that people can exercise their right to free association without intimidation. Please check the last bit of this post from the other thread to see how the intentions of the National Labor Relations Act were thwarted early on.

Are you suggesting that I read this for entertainment, or do you have some particular point to make about my statements or arguments? If you think I’ve been claiming that the current manner in which votes are taken is perfect and free of tampering, you’ve been badly misunderstanding my position.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@begbert2

Are you suggesting that I read this for entertainment, or do you have some particular point to make about my statements or arguments? If you think I’ve been claiming that the current manner in which votes are taken is perfect and free of tampering, you’ve been badly misunderstanding my position.

Not suggesting you read it for entertainment, just for information. As I’ve said several times, there is a lack of knowledge exhibited here about how union organizing and elections are actually conducted, and the laws that govern the process. Much of that was discussed, referenced, and clarified in the other thread, and I don’t feel like re-typing it all in this newer thread.

The point I was making was not in regards to you specifically, but rather to anyone who is worried that the EFCA will somehow radically tilt things in the unions favor, and invite unfettered terrorizing of co-workers. The point is this: things are already unbalanced, and heavily in favor of the employer. There is a huge body of documented evidence to support this statement, while there is little to no evidence of anything described by detractors of the EFCA, beyond unconfirmed anecdotes.

As I said:

@Bo

The EFCA seeks to level the playing field, so that people can exercise their right to free association without intimidation.

The quotes in my previous post back up the need for this, and the aim of the proposed legislation.

@begbert2

And Deeg, there’s a difference between hiring the most efficient workers and hiring people specifically to corrupt the neutrality of the vote. About the only way I can thing of to avoid the latter would be for the company not to know a vote is happening until it’s over, which (I vaguely gather) is impossible under the current rules and honestly would be very difficult to pull off under any rules (except ones that allowed the list of permitted voters to be frozen at an early stage of the process, I guess).

And I agree that open card check, alone, fails the no-intimidation test in my opinion as well. Due to considerations of expediency I don’t really mind it as a preliminary assessment, like I gather it currently is, but as the final determiner I think it’s inherently problematic to an unacceptable degree.

I think this is a respectably skeptical attitude. I’m just trying to provide people with some referents to help them clarify, modify, or codify their position on this issue. Just as the employer holds most of the cards in the organizing laws, the employers have greater resources to distribute their arguments regarding the EFCA. Thus, I try to present evidence and arguments about why I think the EFCA is the right thing to do in these current circumstances.