It makes that conclusion a lot more likely, however.
Since we have at least one union organizer in the thread I may as well ask this here.
When the union was trying to get us to join, we all got letters in the mail from the union announcing that there were enough cards signed and we were now in the union. It said we would be notified soon about the contract negotiations. There was also an event where an internal investigation (unrelated to this) was ongoing and we were asked if we wanted a union rep with us while speaking with the investigator. All of this led us to believe that were now part of the union. We never heard anything else about it after that. What likely happened here?
It amazes me how you dismiss the opinions of the vast majority of posters here with so little support for your own position. Don’t you think that maybe you are just plain wrong?
Hell, even if it weren’t true, that intimidation on the part of union organizers and union inclined co-workers rests only in the minds of people as is evidenced here, doesn’t that suggest the secret ballot should be maintained? The vast majority of us want it maintained. We feel safer if it is maintained.
After all we are all potential targets of union organization at one time or another. We represent the people you’ve either organized or you want to organize. Why don’t you listen to us ? Or, is it that you know better than us what is good for us?
Well, yeah. That’s kind of how intimidation works. Someone is intimidated if they feel intimidated. There’s no objective standard for it beyond how a person perceives it. What, you want observers to stand around in the workplace measuring units of intimidation (perhaps we can call them “Intimitrons”?) and then when they record a certain number we can certify a workplace as “Intimidating?” Obviously I’m being a bit facetious, but how would you propose someone provide evidence of intimidation if testimony is not enough? How much intimidation needs to happen before it’s significant enough to matter?
It seems like a bit of a double standard that others are supposed to take you at your word when you claim that employers engage in aggressive intimidation before the secret ballot, when you have provided significantly less evidence.
Evidence has been provided throughout the thread. Here is more, in a study published December 2005: cite
Read the whole report (.pdf!) here
Conclusions from the report:
From your cite Bo
Do you dispute their findings? If so, say so. Then give us some evidence to the contrary.
Who would you go to for information about union organizing campaigns? Obviously: the unions doing the organizing, and the NLRB. Also individuals who have been a part of campaigns.
The claim was made that no evidence was presented. There is evidence and it has been presented. Unless you can show me contrary evidence, I have no reason to doubt the findings, especially as they are backed up by other studies, including Kate Bronfenbrenner’s landmark 2000 study, Uneasy Terrain.
Here are similar numbers, with sources footnoted.
I’ll preempt any questioning of the integrity of Dr. Bronfenbrenner, tho, with
Very good question. The union shouldn’t have dropped the ball like that. But let me ask you this - what did you do to follow up? Was there any election for steward or other officers from the shop floor, and if so, did you follow up with them at all?
A union is only as good as its rank-and-file members. The union isn’t going to do everything for you, but it can certainly help you and your co-workers do together what none of you could do individually.
From your cite
Do you dispute her findings, research and methodology? Or are you just pointing out part of her work history?
So far today you have rolled eyes and quoted 2 documents, but you have made no assertions or statements. What are you trying to say/point out/communicate?
“She’s a union organizer and she’s biased, so NATURALLY she’s going to ignore union intimidation!” It’s a hell of a lot easier to say that than to actually dig up research that contradicts the findings.
No, there were never any elections. I didn’t followup because I didn’t want in anyway, so the fact that they didn’t start taking any dues or anything was fine by me.
I checked with a friend of mine who still works in the area that they were trying to unionize and she said there is a rumor, but no confirmation, that there were problems with the card check. It seems that at some point, they got an email from the manager that we weren’t going to be in the union but we never received any communication from the union itself after that one letter. (I changed positions a few months after all this was happening which may be why I didn’t get the email)
That some shady bullshit right there. Out of curiosity, did you ever get any information on the result of the card check?
The only thing we ever got was a single letter from the union saying “welcome!”. That is the last communication I ever received from them. Exactly what the email said I don’t know because it came after I left that position.
I wonder if they just removed our group from the group that was joining? There were like 10 of us in our office that had been grouped with something like 800 others from different departments and buildings. It was very clear that no one in our group was interested, several were talking about calling they attorneys to see how they could get out of the union. I may check with the union directly, but it’s not a high priority thing for me to find out.
Are you still in touch with that friend? I’d be interested to know if the company pushed for a secret ballot, also (if you remember) when the card check started, and how long it took for the results to be certified/announced.
I don’t recall what the timeframe was to be honest. Wouldn’t we have been notified that a secret ballot was coming? It’s not like the union didn’t have all of our addresses.
I don’t fully understand this part of the process, but I believe the union organizers try to determine who would fall under their jurisdiction based on job type, and the employers can challenge that. Maybe their challenge was successful in this instance. I honestly don’t know.
I should think so - but I have no idea when, how, or by whom.
True, the company could punish everybody but if a company is willing to go that far there is no way an open card check is going to stop it.
And open card check doesn’t stop this, either. I don’t believe that anybody has said that a private election will eliminate all abuses. What has been stated is that a private vote minimizes abuses on both sides more than any other solution proposed so far. Neither you nor Bo have been able to refute that, at least to my satisfaction.
I just checked with her to clarify my memory of the timeline. It was in april 07 that the cards were done and about that same time we got the letter. I changed positions in June and they got the email (she doesn’t recall from whom exactly) in december. I don’t have the letter anymore, I bought a house and moved since then so I probably tossed it.