Employee Free Choice Act

[JimOfAllTrades]

@Olentzero

And in the tradition of not standing up to challenge them, you’ll naturally keep your mouth shut.

Naturally :rolleyes:

What does this ad hominem have to do with a secret ballot stopping some kinds of abuse?

[Deeg]

@Olentzero

I believe that falls under the heading of “Unfair Labor Practice” and it can be taken to arbitration. Also, since the length of time for a card check is assumed to be shorter (and I’m still looking for evidence either way) than the setup for a secret ballot, the company has less opportunity for the hardball tactics - and no recourse to the secret ballot delay if support exceeds 50% +1.

With secret elections there will be no need for arbitration because the employer won’t know who to punish. On one hand you seem sure that arbitration will handle cases of employer malfeasance but deathly afraid of employer intimidation tactics the week before a secret ballot.

You still haven’t given a good reason for avoiding a secret ballot. If you are so worried about the lag time between card-checks and the secret election then shorten it. I would only add that the employer must be notified that the cards are being passed out.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Deeg

With secret elections there will be no need for arbitration because the employer won’t know who to punish. On one hand you seem sure that arbitration will handle cases of employer malfeasance but deathly afraid of employee intimidation tactics the week before a secret ballot.

I know that this is now a very long thread, so it’s possible you missed my post #331. Employer’s can still stonewall and punish people after a secret ballot, they just go ahead and punish everyone.

They can also do things like Blue Man Group has done: cite (this is wiki, but the Las Vegas Review-Journal and other newpapers have published stories about this; the wiki article just summed it up fairly well)

In September 2005, Blue Man Group moved from Luxor, where they had a union contract, to The Venetian, electing not to keep the contract. Stagehands who went from the Luxor venue to the Venetian started an organizing campaign with IATSE Local 720 in Las Vegas, leading to a vote in May 2006. Before the vote, Matt Goldman, a co-founder of Blue Man Group, pledged to honor the results “in accordance with the great democratic traditions of our country.”[14]

In the May 2006 election, the stagehands voted to be represented by IATSE Local 720.[16] In June the National Labor Relations Board certified the results.[14] The winning election permitted the employees to start bargaining a contract with Blue Man Productions. After the election, Blue Man Group refused to go to negotiate, arguing that the election was not valid because it did not include a half-dozen musical technicians.[16]

In June, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB sided with the union. The company filed a challenge, sending the case to full hearings before the Board in Washington DC. In September 2006 the NLRB rejected the challenge, ordering bargaining to begin.[14]

In September 2006, Blue Man Group sued to have the NLRB ruling overturned. In October, the NLRB filed a petition for enforcement of its order. [14] (D.C. Cir. Nos. 06-1328 & 06-1341 NLRB v. Blue Man Vegas, LLC Board Case Nos. 28-CA-20868 and 28-RC-6440).[17]

On June 10, 2008, the US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the NLRB.[18]

The union has also filed charges of federal unfair labor practices with the NLRB Las Vegas office, contending that Blue Man Group illegally changed the show’s work rules and fired a key union supporter.[16]

IATSE 720 still has no contract with BMG, and the stagehands that did work on the show no longer do; they have a non-union crew now at their new venue, The Venetian.

It would be naive to think that employers are powerless, or that they won’t flex their muscles. The penalties for doing so are so slight that many employers just put them into their budget as a cost of doing business, and then post the obligatory notice of violation on a bulletin board in the back of the help’s hall kitchen. (The help’s hall is where the employees of a casino eat.)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

From Human Rights Watch:

Human Rights Watch has found that workers’ right to bargain collectively is often thwarted by employers who engage in “surface bargaining”—negotiating with no intention of ever reaching an agreement. Under current law, even if such illegal bad-faith bargaining can be proven, the remedy is simply more bargaining, where the cycle can repeat itself. For example, we documented a case in which collective bargaining lasted for twelve years, at which point, frustrated and dwindling in numbers, the union surrendered its bargaining rights still without an agreement. One bargaining representative commented, “At this rate, the company would still have deal-killers on the table twenty-five years from now.”

Remedies available for violating US laws protecting workers’ right to organize have little deterrent effect and are considered by employers a small price to pay for a union-free workplace. For especially egregious conduct, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can seek an injunction, but it rarely does so. In most cases, the NLRB simply orders the offending employer to restore the status quo and post a notice that it will not repeat the unlawful conduct. In one case we investigated, the NLRB ordered an employer to reinstate a worker, with back pay, fired five years earlier for supporting an organizing drive. After subtracting the worker’s interim earnings over five years, the total penalty was only $1,305, plus interest, hardly a significant disincentive to flouting US labor law.

[Olentzero]

@RJKUgly

Naturally :rolleyes:

What does this ad hominem have to do with a secret ballot stopping some kinds of abuse?

Shouldn’t we already be seeing that kind of co-worker abuse on a large scale since the card-check process is currently in use? All I’ve seen are suppositions that it could happen but no serious analyses of data that shows it does happen. And frankly, I’m not too sympathetic towards people who’d gladly talk out of both sides of their mouth. That kind of dishonesty needs to get called on.

Furthermore, a workplace free of hostility is the responsibility of everyone; if pro-union workers are being genuine jerks the other workers have just as much responsibility to call them on it as pro-union workers do to call others on doing the same thing. And any union worth its salt that gets complaints about its stewards or other elected officials will act to resolve those complaints quickly because, well, decertification’s just that easy.

@Deeg

With secret elections there will be no need for arbitration because the employer won’t know who to punish.

That doesn’t stop them. One common tactic is “predicting” the shop will close if the employees organize. Just because they may not know which specific individuals voted ‘yes’ doesn’t mean they can’t punish employees.

On one hand you seem sure that arbitration will handle cases of employer malfeasance but deathly afraid of employer intimidation tactics the week before a secret ballot.

I don’t see a contradiction here. I’d like to see the window of opportunity for employer intimidation eliminated while at the same time enforcing stricter punishments for such occurrences.

You still haven’t given a good reason for avoiding a secret ballot.

Increased opportunity for employer intimidation means decreased chance of success for union organization drives. I’ve said that numerous times.

If you are so worried about the lag time between card-checks and the secret election then shorten it.

Why shorten it when it can be eliminated? Why let the bosses have any opportunity to delay democracy and subvert it through intimidation?

I would only add that the employer must be notified that the cards are being passed out.

I’m pretty sure that already happens, but Bo may be in a better position to confirm that.

[JimOfAllTrades]

@Olentzero

Shouldn’t we already be seeing that kind of co-worker abuse on a large scale since the card-check process is currently in use? All I’ve seen are suppositions that it could happen but no serious analyses of data that shows it does happen

Where is the data that shows that your 40 people who changed their minds didn’t originally sign the cards to give everyone a chance to vote, or changed their minds with more time for genuine deliberation, or signed the cards to get noisy organizers, jerks, and busybodies out of their hair?

@Olentzero

And frankly, I’m not too sympathetic towards people who’d gladly talk out of both sides of their mouth. That kind of dishonesty needs to get called on.

So you’re out of debates and just want to say that you’re cooler than the rest of us kids. Ok, I’m out.

[Olentzero]

@RJKUgly

Where is the data that shows that your 40 people who changed their minds didn’t originally sign the cards to give everyone a chance to vote, or changed their minds with more time for genuine deliberation, or signed the cards to get noisy organizers, jerks, and busybodies out of their hair?

Don’t have it. Trying to find it. Where’s yours?

[Grumman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

From Human Rights Watch:

Human Rights Watch has found that workers’ right to bargain collectively is often thwarted by employers who engage in “surface bargaining”—negotiating with no intention of ever reaching an agreement. Under current law, even if such illegal bad-faith bargaining can be proven, the remedy is simply more bargaining, where the cycle can repeat itself. For example, we documented a case in which collective bargaining lasted for twelve years, at which point, frustrated and dwindling in numbers, the union surrendered its bargaining rights still without an agreement. One bargaining representative commented, “At this rate, the company would still have deal-killers on the table twenty-five years from now.”

How do you distinguish between an employer who is engaging in “surface bargaining” and an employer who is simply unwilling to give the union what they’re asking for? If they can’t reach a compromise, isn’t that as much the union’s fault as it is the employer’s?

[Shodan]

@Olentzero

And frankly, I’m not too sympathetic towards people who’d gladly talk out of both sides of their mouth. That kind of dishonesty needs to get called on.

How about when it is not dishonesty, but intimidation?

I’d like to see the window of opportunity for employer intimidation eliminated while at the same time enforcing stricter punishments for such occurrences.

I believe the rest of us are arguing that we would like to see a window for union intimidation not opened up.

Increased opportunity for employer intimidation means decreased chance of success for union organization drives. I’ve said that numerous times.

And increased opportunity for union intimidation means decreased chance of success for people who just want to do their jobs and not pay dues to a union who is trying to strong-arm them.

Why let the bosses have any opportunity to delay democracy and subvert it through intimidation?

Insert the word “union” before “bosses” and you have the other side’s position summed up rather neatly.

Regards,
Shodan

[Olentzero]

Once again: The card check process is already in place, and is the first step in the certification process. In the test case I provided (GPM vs Progress Casting Group Inc) the switch of 40 people from for to against has been argued to be the result of union intimidation, but no solid data has been brought to prove this point. If union intimidation is a solid, inevitable fact of the card check process, please bring your data to the table. Otherwise there is no grounds to believe that restricting employers’ use of the secret ballot will result in increased union coercion.

[treis]

@Olentzero

Once again: The card check process is already in place, and is the first step in the certification process. In the test case I provided (GPM vs Progress Casting Group Inc) the switch of 40 people from for to against has been argued to be the result of union intimidation, but no solid data has been brought to prove this point. If union intimidation is a solid, inevitable fact of the card check process, please bring your data to the table. Otherwise there is no grounds to believe that restricting employers’ use of the secret ballot will result in increased union coercion.

As pointed out numerous times in this thread, signing a card does not necessarily indicate union support. There’s no reason to think that 40 people changed their minds instead of simply voting what they had believed all along.

[Olentzero]

@Grumman

If they can’t reach a compromise, isn’t that as much the union’s fault as it is the employer’s?

If the company you worked for was trying to push through a pay cut, what would you rather your union do? Throw in the towel or keep fighting as long as it could?

[Olentzero]

@treis

As pointed out numerous times in this thread, signing a card does not necessarily indicate union support. There’s no reason to think that 40 people changed their minds instead of simply voting what they had believed all along.

But the assertion behind their doing so is that it was a response to union coercion allowed by the card check process - which none of you have brought a scintilla of hard evidence to support. Personal anecdotes don’t prove it’s a widespread phenomenon.

[treis]

@Olentzero

But the assertion behind their doing so is that it was a response to union coercion allowed by the card check process - which none of you have brought a scintilla of hard evidence to support. Personal anecdotes don’t prove it’s a widespread phenomenon.

Nor does the lack of hard evidence, as you call it, prove that it’s not.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Grumman

How do you distinguish between an employer who is engaging in “surface bargaining” and an employer who is simply unwilling to give the union what they’re asking for? If they can’t reach a compromise, isn’t that as much the union’s fault as it is the employer’s?

Apparently the concept of “good-faith” is something you don’t adequately understand.

Both sides must negotiate. In the example cited by HRW, it’s clear that they felt that the employer was simply not budging, that everything they asked for was a “deal breaker”. For all we know, they were not asking for any pay raise, increase in vacation days or anything at all over and above what the employees were already receiving in compensation but the employer simply was stonewalling because he didn’t like the union. That’s how their example reads to me: the employer was committed to not signing the contract; he was not negotiating in good faith.

If you have some issue with HRW’s methodology, contact them for clarification.

So to answer your last question: No. In the case given as an example, it wouldn’t be the union’s fault as much as the employer’s fault.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@treis

Nor does the lack of hard evidence, as you call it, prove that it’s not.

:rolleyes:

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Snowboarder_Bo

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

[Shodan]

@Olentzero

Once again: The card check process is already in place, and is the first step in the certification process. In the test case I provided (GPM vs Progress Casting Group Inc) the switch of 40 people from for to against has been argued to be the result of union intimidation, but no solid data has been brought to prove this point. If union intimidation is a solid, inevitable fact of the card check process, please bring your data to the table. Otherwise there is no grounds to believe that restricting employers’ use of the secret ballot will result in increased union coercion.

Well, no offense, but in the post immediately previous to the one quoted above, you discussed only the opportunity of intimidation by management -

I’d like to see the window of opportunity for employer intimidation eliminated while at the same time enforcing stricter punishments for such occurrences.

Increased opportunity for employer intimidation means decreased chance of success for union organization drives. I’ve said that numerous times.

Why let the bosses have any opportunity to delay democracy and subvert it through intimidation?

Isn’t it interesting that you can clearly see the opportunity of employer intimidation in the process, but not for unions?

Regards,
Shodan

[Garula]

Shodan makes a good point here. Olentzero, you seem to be demanding a far higher standard of proof for instances of union intimidation than for employer intimidation. There have been numerous personal anecdotes shared which have been casually dismissed, demanding that the data be obtained rigorously, even though the type of intimidation being talked about is virtually unquantifiable. Yet, aside from vague, unsubstantiated claims that employers will go so far as to murder people just for trying to unionize (and yes, that sort of thing may have taken place in the early 20th century, but how about we keep the discussion to the last few decades), there have been scarcely few examples mentioned to make me think that the month or so between card checks and secret ballot are so horrid. Frankly, even if it’s not a widespread, systematic phenomenon, anecdotes shared in this thread have indicated to me that there is already enough union intimidation going on that there need to be protections in place, i.e. that the secret ballot must be vigorously maintained.

[Olentzero]

@Garula

There have been numerous personal anecdotes shared which have been casually dismissed, demanding that the data be obtained rigorously, even though the type of intimidation being talked about is virtually unquantifiable.

In other words: “We don’t have to prove it’s true. Just saying it’s true should be good enough.”

Sorry, pal - that dog won’t hunt either.