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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I broadened the scope of your statement? WHAAAAAAAT???
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?
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.
scule said much the same thing
and I replied to him as I would to you
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.
I did not edit any of your statement. The complete sentences are yours, and I did not alter them in any way.
I broadened nothing. You said “no one, ever” and then confirmed that you meant “no one, ever”. Those are your words.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
The reasons a tactic is used has no relation to whether it is ethical. At all.
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.
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:
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…
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.
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
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.
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.