Sorry. I would more likely succumb to management intimidation in an open ballot and vote no union, but if the ballot were secret I would not succumb and I would vote for union. I don’t like being intimidated or threatened.
Come to think of it, it is difficult for me to see how management intimidation is productive for the company with a secret ballot.
Unions are directly accountable. Union officials are voted into office by the membership, and any union can be subjected to a vote for decertification by the workers at a particular employer.
And if you and your boss are happy with each other, and others working in a similar capacity are happy and would not want or support a union organizing effort, why would any union want to waste valuable time, resources and man-hours trying to convince you, through illegal use of force or threats, to change your mind? It doesn’t compute. There are plenty of asshole employers down the road.
Some companies, like some people, do the right thing. Not all of them do.
I mean, people know they should eat right and exercise, but we still have lots of fat people.
Unions: dieticians of the work force, helping to shape up America!
Hmm, that slogan needs a little tweaking, but it’s not bad. 
I’ve always been a union supporter even though the NEA is not a union. But I’ve never been a one issue person in deciding whether to support a President.
Well, that’s good for you, but not everyone is as strong-minded in the workplace.
I teach/recruit at a three-day institute run by the AFL occasionally. It’s meant to serve as a workshop where people can learn the basics of union organizing techniques, and we (the teaching fellows) can hire them if we like their stuff.
Anyway, whenever we talk to the group about management’s message during a union campaign, most ofthe group says the exact same thing you do: “There’s no way people would fall for that shit…Why would you listen to your boss and vote against the union if that’s what you wanted…I would never listen to that.”
I always tried explaining to them that until you’re in the situation, you can’t say that. Never seemed to sink in. So at one training, we had this conversation. After lunch, after we all were back in our seats, I told one guy to come up to the front and middle of the room, sit on the floor and sing the alphabet backward as high and loud as he could. After trying for a minute or two with not much luck, I sent him back to his seat.
I asked him why he did that. He said “Because you told me to.” I asked “Who am I?” He said “The teacher.” I asked him if I also didn’t represent his potential employer; he agreed. My point was, they were all looking for a job that weekend, and as their potential employer, they were doing everything I asked them to do, even if it didn’t make immediate sense. In this case, the desire for a job overcame his pride; in those instances many people will do wierd things when told by the person that represents a job to them.
I know that’s not the perfect analogy, as it doesn’t speak to your belief that people will let the boss’s message go in one ear and out the other, and still vote yes in the voting booth, if that’s what they really want. But I can tell you that’s not the case. People often want change in the workplace, need change, support forming a union, but when the boss puts fear in them, they change their minds because they don’t want to jeopardize their jobs.
At this point in the thread, I’m bowing out. I concede that not all unions are stellar, sometimes organizers fuck up, the Free Choice Act isn’t perfection on paper. On the other hand, not many anti-Free Choice people are willing to concede much here, or even listen and acknowledge what’s being posted on the other side of the debate.
Anyway, it’s been fun at times. See y’all in the funny papers.
A vote for decertification would most likely require an organized effort by anti-union employees. Almost by definition, the organized employees are in the union. Besides, humans by nature prefer the status quo, as evidenced by the cited figures of 90% approval at union companies and 53% at non-union. Something is changing people’s opinions… Maybe they’re being influenced in their opinions by the union? (It’s a bad thing when a company does it, but good when a union does it?)
Nevertheless, a union unsuccessfully tried to come into our company a year or two ago. I don’t remember which union it was, but I remember that judging by the name, it had nothing to do with our primary business. As in other personal anecdotes in this thread, the company didn’t try to influence us one way or the other. If anything, I heard that it might be more convenient for the company to let the union make some of the decisions.
Come to think of it, has anyone here experienced the “union-busting” tactics that have been described? Or is it the union side who have been engaging in scare tactics?
Some unions, like some people, do the right thing. Not all of them do.
There’s no objective reason for there to be more good people in unions than in management.
We made people do far more embarrassing things as hazing for sports teams. Much like coworkers, we didn’t have any direct power over the person, but there were always ways to get back at someone, and peer pressure is a powerful thing. The point is that pressure can come from everywhere. Coworkers have power over their fellow as well as the employers. The best way to avoid retaliation from both sides is to have a secret ballot. Since no one knows who voted for or against the union, it is much more difficult for either side to retaliate.
I also object to the employer expressing their views as intimidation, or something that should be objected to. Unions can, and often do, have a detrimental effect on businesses. In the view of the employer, a union means higher costs, through hire wages. It mean less productivity because it is much more difficult to fire incompetent employees, jurisdictional grievances, and all of the other minor things that arise when you have to deal with a CBA. In addition, you have the risk of a strike and other stop work action. In short, all of these negatives that come with a union do have an impact, and I see no problem with an employer spelling them out.
There are serious consequences to workers from these negatives. For one, if you increase the price of something, you decrease the demand for it. That’s basic economics. What that means for employees is fewer jobs overall. Since employees are much more difficult to fire, employers are much more reluctant to hire them in the first place. They will begin looking at contractors and sending work out to outside shops instead of hiring more employees. In the worse case, a union might tip a plant from profitable to unprofitable, resulting in everyone losing their jobs. To employees, there are significant risks and downsides to a union that they probably aren’t necessarily hearing from organizers.
I see no problem with both sides presenting their case, and trusting the workers to decide for themselves in a secret ballot whether or not they want a union. This way, workers get all the information they need, and they are in the most secure position possible from retaliation from both sides.
When the union was trying to organize us our managers told us only that they were unable to get involved and that it was completely our decision. I really wish they would have given us some input. As it was the only input we had was from the union and each other.
Here’s something that 's been overlooked by both sides in the debate:
The decision to hold NLRB secret ballot elections is based on card check (that is, open ballot) results.
In other words, the process decried by opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act as ruining the secret ballot is the same process that allows the secret ballot to be used in the first place. If the card check procedure is so open to rampant union coercion, why aren’t we seeing it? This is not to disagree that bum unions exist and individual organizers can fuck up badly, I’m asking why union coercion isn’t systemic if the process that’s supposed to make it systemic is already in place.
Furthermore, NLRB secret ballot elections are only held at the insistence of the company, not the workers, if they choose to ignore the results of the card check process - even with 50% +1.
Additionally, as has been noted, the card check procedure requires 100% employee involvement - every employee eligible for representation in the new unit has to be accounted for; if they can’t be located or even identified it’s counted as a refusal to sign a card. The secret ballot election, on the other hand, only counts those employees who bother to show up to vote. The 2000 and 2004 elections are quite an edifying illustration of the dangers of less than 100% voter turnout!
Which process looks more democratic to the other side of this debate?
One other specific quote I wanted to respond to:
If you looked at the article I linked to all the way back there, you’d have seen that it quite clearly states support for unionization among non-union workers increased from 33% in the mid-1990s to the 53% quoted in 2005. Looking at only one data point is an unacceptable method of determing attitudes over a period of time, my friend.
We are seeing it. In this thread several people have posted about their experiences of intimidation by union organizers. There is this quote:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Union-friendly__bill_controversial_11-23-2008.html
The most likely explanation is that many of those workers signed the card simply to get the organizers off of their back.
It doesn’t require 100% employee involvement. In fact, at minimum, it only requires 30% employee involvement if all 30% of those people sign cards supporting the union.
Besides, what exactly is your proposal here? How do you want to account for those people that don’t (or refuse to) sign cards, or skip the election?
That doesn’t seem like a good idea. The employer shouldn’t be able to look at who signed the cards. That way, the entire process will be as secret as possible and thus, as free from intimidation and coercion as possible.
Perhaps we are getting somewhere. You’ve admitted bum unions exist and individual organizers can fuck up badly. so do you have any cites to back that up?
No, but you know it happens. That’s good enough for me and that’s good enough for me to believe that all employee decisions to unionize should be a result of secret ballot.
Again you show that you do not really understand the processes involved.
A vote for decertification can be brought about if 30% of the employees covered under a CBA all sign a petition stating that they want to decert, the same minimum number that can petition for a vote in favor of a union. If 50%+1 sign a decert petition, the employer can simply declare that a majority voted to decert and no election is held which is the same rule that the unions want to be able to invoke.
Why should this be in place when it favors the employer, but not when it favors the union?
And yes, I have experienced intimidation, lies, and threats from management during organizing campaigns. It happened in Florida when I worked at a theme park. UAW tried to organize the tech workers, not during any of the time I’ve been a member of my current union (altho we’ve seen some of the same during organizing campaigns which my local has conducted here, I was not a direct part of those efforts).
Read this article to see how difficult a company can make things for organizing workers.
After a secret ballot, the employer just punished everyone in the unit. Complaints have been filed with the NLRB, and negotiations continue 18 months after the vote in favor of the union. 18 months that these guys have had no contract and been screwed with.
I like this comment. As if union organizers were rabid weasels, teeth sunk into a neck and hanging on no matter how an uninterested worker flings themselves about. :rolleyes:
Did you have another explanation for the difference between an open and a secret ballot? If no untoward pressure was exerted, why the difference?
Regards,
Shodan
Its as if the union organizers are like you Snowboarder Bo never taking no for an answer, and never giving up, and repeating and repeating and repeating the same old line.
If the union gets better wages,more security and safer conditions, all employees benefit. Some say I don’t want to pay union dues. Then don’t ,but give back what the union has brought you.
Of course that would be impossible. Therefore in a union place .all employees should pay.
This is a debate, and whenever I see incorrect information present in someone’s argument, yeah, I try and correct it by providing factual and accurate information.
You are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of: you keep coming back here repeating and repeating and repeating…
I don’t understand why you are so dismissive of the comment. I didn’t proscribe any evil intentions to any of the organizers. It’s simply a matter of people being zealous about their cause, and missing the signals to “STFU” and “leave me alone”. No different than Jehova’s Witnesses or whomever else is campaigning for a cause. They aren’t evil, just a bit clueless. Giving them what they want is an easy, non confrontational way of getting them to leave you alone. The EFCA will take away that option and open up employees for coworker retaliation for dubious gain.
Right in this very thread:
What’s the deal here? Do you not believe his experience, don’t believe it’s widespread, or what?
Sorry. Just tell me you signed a card, any card, and I’ll withdraw from this thread.
GM is failing because it’s run by idiots who produced an inferior product. Maybe if they developed the Volt before gas hit $4.40 a gallon they’d be doing better.
Are you as asserting unions lead to GM’s situation?
How do you propose workers safeguard and get fair compensation for the value of their work?
Left to it’s own devices the free market leads to sweat shops and child slaves. As China shows.
Snowboarder Bo the point of my list isn’t about those professions organizing, but about the way unions seem to lump all of them as “management”. Those of us in clerical or technical professions have nothing to do with labor disputes, but if you treat us like we’re your enemy expect us to act that way. If you want the high ground, you can’t get it by merely being less bad than the other guy, and you certainly lose it when you target those who aren’t involved.
As for the UAW encouraging automation, I recall seeing that too, after years of fighting it, and only when the companies where their workers were at were getting trounced by non-union companies. Doesn’t mean much to change when it’s change or die.
Yeah, explain the truck/dock thing to me so it makes sense, don’t just tell me there’s a contract, tell me how the contract is anything more than the center trying to keeping the union off its back by screwing people from out of town. I see far to much waste promoted by unions, and far to little responsiblity. I find it laughable that you want to be able to narrowly define every job that someone is allowed to do, but then pass off actually making things work to “management”.
I didn’t ask you about stopping someone from getting a new job, I asked about getting someone out of an existing job. I’d be happy if I saw the union stand aside and let someone get fired at times. It’d help me believe that unions actually cared about quality if they did anything to remove rot and waste.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo;10522098People have the right to freely associate. It’s in the Constitution. What you are proposing would bar the union and it’s supporters from participating in that right.
You also fail to address the words of Richard Wagner, the author of the original NLRA.
It seems, therefore, that you oppose any right for workers to freely associate and negotiate with their employer collectively.
I will say it again: organizing is not interference. It is participating in a right guaranteed to all Americans.[/QUOTE]
I have nothing against people freely associating. All good there. It’s when you require people to associate that I have an issue. As long as you don’t require someone to pay you to work in any give shop, or go to your meetings, and as long as you don’t harass people in suits driving to work for being suits going to work, we’re okay.
I will admit that I don’t like unions, and that they have caused harm to people I know and love–people that had nothing to do with dispute at hand. I can see that, in certain places and times, there is a need for them, but until and unless they change a great deal from their current form, I’ll support that which makes things more difficult for them.