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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Because the other workers in the plant didn’t elect me to vote for them.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
Agreed.
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?
The behavior of private clubs that people freely join is hardly relevant.
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?
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.
I disagree completely. An unethical tactic continues to be unethical even when used in the pursuit of a worthy goal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Go read about the Haymarket Massacre, the Bay View Massacre, the Hacienda Luisita Massacre* (video, 6:41) 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.
How is your place of employment not a private club that people freely joined? Are you forced to work there?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
