Okay, I get it now. People are too stupid to do the right thing, so therefore we need to make sure they are publicly intimidated into it.
I’ve never seen a union work to cut costs through automation, process improvement, or standardization. I’ve never seen a union able to tell the difference between techies, engineers, accountants and upper management. I’ve never, ever, seen a union work to get an idiot union member fired. I have seen unions disallow small business owners the right to do their own work (say, carry their goods to a booth at a convention). I have seen unions protect the job of someone who hadn’t done a day’s worth of work in years, just because they’d been there a while.
I’ve also seen the lengths a union will go to in order to get support from the people they want to take money from. Making the union have to win a secret ballot means that there is no social pressure to vote for the union, and no retalliation possible from those who want to organize. I’ve never seen techies, business analysts, accountants, or their managers egg someone’s house because they were union; I’ve seen someone’s house egged because they were “management”. I certainly don’t see why a union should be able to hold me accountable to telling them to go fuck themselves.
I don’t see why making the unions actually have to earn the support of the workforce without being able to target people individually is bad, after all, isn’t the union supposed to protect individuals by rolling them all together? Then, I don’t see the problem with them having to win their support through a secret ballot.
What are you talking about? It’s not about stupidity or lack thereof, it’s about taking intimidation out of the process. Did you even read why I said union intimidation will not work should Free Choice pass? If people are coerced, pushed, pressured, intimidated, tricked or strong-armed into signing a card, they will decertify. Or, in an open-shop environment, they will not join. Any organizing department worth its weight in salt knows this, and does not, and will not, do it.
Are there rogue and dumbass organizers? Sure. Why? Because people are flawed. But organizationally, this is not a strategy that will succeed, nor will it be employeed by most unions. Are there rogue and dumbass unions? Sure. Why? Because people are flawed. (Are there rogue and dumbass mayors, governors, presidents, etc? Sure. You get the point…)
Are there union people that egg houses, even though it’s against the law? Sure. But institutionally and organizationally, does this type of behavior makes sense? It sure hasn’t won many pro-union votes here, that’s for sure.
Are there managers that fire pro-union employees and key their cars, even though it’s against the law? Sure. Institutionally, does this type of behavior make sense? It sure has prevented a large number of workers from organizing a union, so I’d say “yeah.”
To build and maintain strength, the burden is on unions to mind their Ps & Qs. So why would they operate otherwise?
Does not compute. The higher productivity in the last couple decades with less workers should have resulted in higher wages. Wages actually dropped . That was because unions could not get a slice of the pie. The profits were enormous and wages and bonuses at the top were unprecedented, The money was there. The top just kept it all.That is part of the reason we have a wealth split higher than ever now. The wealth and profits were there.
Compute this, GM net worth down to $2 billion and shutting down plants. VW investing $1 Billion in 1 city in the US.
There is no “pie” in a company losing money.
Oh, come on. To build and ship stuff, the burden is on “management” to mind their Ps & Qs. So why would they operate otherwise?
Why would productivity boost wages? A worker is selling his/her time and skills, not the output of the company. If an engineer finds a method to make the line more effective, how did the value of the workers time and skills change?
because they’re being more effective with their time and producing more in the same time span. They’ve taken that engineer’s method, implemented it and used it to increase their productivity. It’s like using computers. It’s a skill. It increases productivity. When new software rolls out or a new interface - it’s not just the technology that’s creating the efficiencies - it’s the combination of the worker effectively using the technology. Those efficiency gains don’t just appear just because some engineer tossed some computers on the floor - they come from workers adapting to new processes and technologies.
The UAW encouraged automation, process improvement, and standardization, as it improved safety and productivity of its members. Not ALL automation, etc. perhaps, but when they felt it was appropriate they certainly encouraged it.
But it isn’t within the scope of a union’s purpose to do it to cut costs. That’s management’s job. You can’t fault a union for not doing management’s job.
Unions will try and organize all sorts of work units, but cannot, by law, try and lump all these same people into one collective bargaining unit. It can’t happen. Go read the NLRA or call someone at the NLRB. They’ll explain how any 3 of those groups would not make it onto an excelsior list during an organizing campaign.
In Nevada, doing this would be illegal. In fact, my own union got sued and lost because we tried to prevent a member from working thru us ever again because he had brought and discharged a gun at work. Cost us more than $2 mil. RTW laws prevent unions from trying to bar anyone from working.
When exhibitors sign up for a convention, they should read the contract. I can tell you that both GES and Freeman, the two largest trade show producers in the US, have contracts that allow exhibitors to hand carry anything they want into the building (they may also use their own handtrucks) thru the public entrances. They may not pull a truck up to the loading dock and begin unloading it. Those are the terms they agreed to, and if they tried to violate the terms of their contract, and thereby the show producers’ contracts with the labor unions they have contracts with, then the exhibitor is wrong. End of story.
I won’t dispute that you’ve seen this, as I wasn’t there. But I do doubt it is so widespread and pervasive that it is truly a problem. Anecdote; data… ya know.
And we’ve seen people shot and killed by government authorized forces because they supported unionizing. Wow, eggs vs. bullets. I’ll take the horror of eggs, please. Go google “union busting” for modern horror stories perpetrated by management, and then come back with documented stories about unions engaging in similar tactics. Go ahead; I’ll wait.
So the union should somehow garner support without knowing which individuals to talk to; i.e. target them individually? How would they do that? The employer knows who these people are, why shouldn’t the union also know? How is it fair or just that the employer has individual contact with workers/voters but the union shouldn’t? Happily, the NLRA says that an excelsior list of all workers that would be eligible to be represented under a particular CBA be provided to the union, so that the union can conduct an organizing campaign in the same way that an employer is able to conduct his own anti-organizing campaign.
First, manufacturing isn’t the only sector where workers organize. Second, like I’ve said a few times now, when you’re talking about labor law-- and that’s what we’re talking about here-- it benefits management to *not *mind their Ps & Qs.
But I guess I’ll say it again: When management breaks labor laws, they get a slap on the wrist, and the benefits far outweigh the penalty. When unions break labor laws, their whole raison d’être is weakened. Example: when unions are found guilty of ULPs, it makes the news; when companies are found guilty, it doesn’t even make the company bulletin board most of the time, even when required by law. That’s why unions have to mind their Ps & Qs. Not to mention, in organizing, as you will note from the anti-union anecdotes in this thread, when people have a less-than-upright encounter with organizers, it doesn’t do the campaign, or the labor movement, any good.
So yes, unions have moved away from the old way of “do it or else” strong-arm organizing-- some more than others, admittedly-- simply because it doesn’t do us any good to have members that aren’t really interested in belonging. Intimidating workers doesn’t work for unions like it works for management.
Precisely! That’s why you MUST have secret ballots. Neither side can intimidate when the person can vote without fear of being held “accountable”. Your response to my question implied that people would be persuaded (by being lied to or otherwise) to vote against the union. Persuasion occurs with a secret ballot, intimidation occurs with a public ballot. I am not opposed to anyone attempting to persuade through rational argument because I believe that people are smart enough, generally, to vote their best interests properly. You apparently don’t because you think the employees will vote foolishly against the union.
Can someone please point me to the current legislation that asserts that the secret ballot can be initiated by employees? As far as I can tell - it is an employer’s move to initiate the secret ballot - not the workers.
If it’s not there, it should be. The employees that don’t want a union should have that right. (Of course, I also believe they should have the right to opt out if they wish to.)
Except most managers don’t use rational arguements in the context of a union campaign.
I’ve seen an employer fire two union supporters, with no previous problems on their record, one with over ten years service, a week before the election. That same employer was holding one-on-one meetings with the workers saying things like “If you vote in the union, I can’t tell you that you’ll have a job here in six months.” ULPs were committed up the wazoo by the employer. Going into the final week, the numbers were overwhelmingly there for the workers to organize. Sixty percent had signed a “vote yes” petition. But because of this last push of “rational argument,” as you call it, turnout was low, and the “no’s” won.
Sixty percent went public with their support for the union. No strong-arming, they knew what they were doing, they wanted to go public. But then they were targeted, and labor laws were broken to intimidate them. But what’s the penalty for the employer’s ULPs? Maybe a re-vote, which is already screwed, because how do you take back “You might lose your job for voting in the union.” Poisoned well.
How many union campaigns have you been a part of flex? Just how many times have you seen management use “rational argument” to avoid having to deal with a unionized workforce? Tell me, when the person who signs your paycheck tells you you should do something a certain way, is that really “persuasion?”
Your argument is fatally flawed. If the company is saying “Bad things will happen to (general) you if you vote for a union”, making it an open ballot doesn’t help at all. If the company is saying “Bad things will happen to (specific) you if you vote for a union”, making it an open ballot makes the threat more effective.
It isn’t taking intimidation out of the process - quite the opposite, it tells the people doing the intimidating who to punish for their non-compliance.
scroll up this page to Post #260; there is a bit of an explanation of how the process works.
If you still have questions, please ask them again and I’ll try and clarify.
Apparently you don’t understand the process.
Signatures on the cards, and eligibility to be a part of the CBA unit, are determined by the NLRB. The employer at no time receives a list of names of people who have signed cards supporting the union.
This is done to prevent an employer from being able to threaten or intimidate a worker.
I’m not sure why you want to get personal. My arguments are based on reason and logic, not emotion or anecdote. However, if you must know, I have experienced several union campaigns where I was a bystander in the whole process (neither an hourly worker union target nor manager). My experience (which is anecdotal and irrelevant to this debate) was that both parties generally behaved themselves with no arm twisting or threats. However, those tactics are not useful when there is a secret ballot so it’s not surprising that we don’t see much of it generally. When you take away the secret ballot it is a completely different situation.
My apologies. But still, even if it retains the secret ballot’s protection from employer interference, why should the protection from interference by the pro-union side be dropped?
My argument was simply that people with power over others can unfairly influence votes, even in a secret election, by slinging intimidating bullshit.
I’m not attacking you, so I don’t know what you mean about getting “personal.” I was only asking about your background for a point of reference.
You’re saying that it’s not *useful *for management to twist arms and threaten in a secret ballot election? You’re saying that we don’t generally see those types of tactics from employers in a union campaign? Well, I can’t debate you, as you’re starting from a false assumption. Your statement, “it’s not surprising that we don’t see much of it generally,” is based upon what facts?
Look, my bottom line:
-Unions and the labor movement have *nothing *to gain, long term, by intimidating workers to do things against their will. Maybe unions operated this way 30, 20 even 10 years ago, but for the most part today, it’s not seen as an effective way to grow an organization. Unions will not instruct their organizers to force unwilling anti-union souls to sign cards against their wills under the Free Choice Act. Doing so would only hurt an already-feeble labor movement in the long-run. Unions that do utilize that tactic will either find out real quick that it doesn’t work, or they will die.
-Employers and managers have *everything *to gain by intimidating their workers to do certain things in a union campaign, and very little to lose. If they intimidate, their workers will vote no, and they won’t have to deal with a unionized workforce. The Free Choice Act-- in theory-- takes that level of intimidation away (I say ‘in theory’ because some people think that if this passes, everyday will be viewed as an anti-union campaign by many companies, and anti-union messages will be stepped up by all levels of management, all the time, “just in case…”)
Under the new law, workers will basically be signing membership cards. If a majority sign up to be members, it’s certified. If fear and intimidation was effective for unions to drum up membership, unions in right-to-work states would have a lot more members. It’s not effective, therefore it’s not used (personal anecdotes aside; I will acknowledge that it does happen, though it’s not the norm, nor is it effective.)
Organizing is not interference.
The employer already has all of the power concerning his employees. The purpose of a union is to even that out, so that the workers have more of a say in the conditions of their employment than simply “take it or leave it”.
Are you suggesting that the union should somehow be kept in the dark about who supports them? How would you do that, and what practical purpose would that serve? How would you do that while still preserving the right to free assembly?
If you don’t think that is a good thing, feel free to march into your employer’s office and let them know that you will do their bidding without regard to safety or compensations, except what they feel disposed to provide. Come back a year later and let us all know how that’s working out for you.
Let me re-post from earlier in this thread (post #130)
And as a last note in this post, these words from Nelson Lichtenstein, Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara.
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.