When one of us offers a first-hand account of an attempt to unionize, it’s dismissed as an anecdote. Yet you’ve dredged up 70-80 year old stories of misdeeds against unions, and consider it relevant.
In post #288, you implied that it was OK for union members to egg a “management” house, because “union busters” had done worse.
We’re getting pretty far from the original issue, though: whether someone’s opinion on joining a union should be private or public. There’s a saying that it’s hard to stand up to one’s enemies, but harder to stand up to one’s friends. I can keep debating here in relative anonymity indefinitely, but if the subject of a union came up at my office again, and someone that I work with every day asked me to sign a petition, I would feel uncomfortable telling them no. And I certainly wouldn’t put a target on my back by trying to organize a decertification drive afterward.
Allow me to help you improve your reading comprehension skills. When I wrote:
I was pointing out that the violence quotient of eggs being thrown at a house versus the violence quotient of bullets being fired into crowds of unarmed men, women and children hardly compared. It borders on the ridiculous, and I for one would rather have eggs thrown at me than bullets fired at me. I in no way condone, explicitly or tacitly, the use of violence, threats, intimidation, harassment, etc. in an organizing drive. Never did.
America was not built, nor our freedoms secured, by people who were unwilling to face adversity. That is the history of our country, it is the history of unions, and both are worth fighting to preserve.
We’re not talking about what individual co-workers might or might not do in reaction to a union vote. We’re talking about intimidation tactics used by employers or unions. Stop muddying the debate.
Through elected representatives (such as stewards), negotiating issues on which employees and employers don’t agree, otherwise known as disputes.
There’s plenty of reason to think that, because that’s part of what unions do.
What could possibly be fair about a system that prevents almost half of the non-unionized workforce from obtaining the representation they desire?
Close but no cigar. Nobody’s saying outright “That didn’t happen to you” or “Union intimidation has never happened”; we’re saying that this is not proof positive of union intimidation being a systematic phenomenon. Violent suppression of union organizing efforts by the bosses and the federal government, however, is a different story.
Excuse me, I’m fairly certain that I’ve been talking about it this entire thread. You might want to ignore it, but I certainly will not.
They don’t want negotiation, they want arbitration. Unions collectively bargain on behalf of workers. Arbiters are neutral parties that try and mediate disputes. The two are completely different.
I know that, and these people never expressed any desire to have that done. Hence, they never expressed any desire to join a union.
I completely reject this argument. Your numbers backing this statement up are not accurate, and there is no reasonable basis to make this statement.
My primary concern is not making an enemy of the outside union organizer. I won’t see much of him when all is said and done. Its the residual long term pissed off co-worker who will make my life miserable. And that goes both ways by the way. That is why we need the secret ballot rather than the card check as a final determinant of the collective will of the workforce.
I never said I was intimidated, but the personal account I’ve given in this thread is from about a year and a half ago. I changed job positions in June 07 and it was right before that.
But the collective will of the workforce is determined even before the secret ballot comes into play. As noted previously, the NLRB secret ballot comes into play only as a result of the card check process, which means if you refuse to sign a card you’ve already potentially pissed off your pro-union co-workers. Although I suspect the amount of obvious hostility towards unions you display might be a bigger factor than the refusal to sign.
The secret ballot won’t go away under the Employee Free Choice Act - the only thing that will happen is that its use will be more restricted. As it stands, an employer can call for an NLRB secret ballot even if 100% of the total eligible workforce signs cards. Under the Act, if it’s passed, they can only do so if between 30% and 50% +1 of the total eligible workforce signs cards. Bo also brings up the salient point that this particular process (automatic at 50% +1 support) is already in place for the decertification process, thereby making it easier for employers to get rid of unions than it is for employees to get one. How is that fair and democratic?
Your reply to my statement that you quoted completely ignores the point I made. Clearly, you think intra workforce relationships should be sacrificed for the benefit of unions.
You brought up my “hostility” towards unions. I’m quite happy not to be controlled by one. Look, if it makes you feel better, I would be quite happy to lower the bar on card check, presently at 30% in order to force a secret ballot. I would be quite happy if the subsequent duration for campaigning for the election was reduced. I’m not about making it difficult for unions to organize a workforce. I’m for a clear unambiguous choice.
And that explains why people are against the EFCA. There is no valid reason to restrict secret ballots. Union like the measure because they know it will increase the likelihood that unions are put into effect.
It’s there already. Let me try to explain this again. (Bo, any clarification/correction of the following would be welcome.)
If, in a decertification card-check, 30-50% of the workforce sign to decertify, it goes to a secret ballot election. (30% is the ‘trigger point’, if I understand correctly - less than that and the process ends there with no decertification.) If more than 50% sign to decertify, there is no secret ballot election. It’s clear that a simple majority want to decertify - what need of a second step?
The same standards should apply to certification. They don’t. Again, no matter what the results (even 100% support) the employers can demand a secret ballot election under current law. Bring the certification process into line with the decertification process - make it less arbitrary and subject to the employers’ whim.
Impersonal ‘you’. Not you, the Flying Dutchman.
There is when it’s used to prevent people who want union representation from getting it.
If the secret ballot were used in every instance of voting in this country, you’d have a point. But we’ve already been over this and demonstrated that the secret ballot is not universal and is therefore not a fundamental aspect of modern democracy. It’s a tool that, under the right conditions, can be used to ensure a democratic decision but that’s not true 100% of the time.
Current law for both certification and decertification deal with the minority situation - if less than 30% support the measure on the table, then the status quo is maintained. That’s not being debated at all. Nor, really, is what happens when 30-50% support is reached - in both cases it goes to a secret ballot. What the Employee Free Choice Act attempts to change - and what’s really the point of the debate here - is what happens when more than 50% support is reached. For a decertification vote the process is declared finished. For certification, the employers still have the option of calling for a secret ballot election.
Why is the second step at all necessary when a simple majority already supports the measure, no matter which one it is?
We know your position on the legitimacy of the secret ballot with respect to the choice for union certification, but can you show us where else the secret ballot is employed by individuals (who only represent themselves) that does not lead to a democratic decision?
