The coyote gets squashed.
Oh wait, that’s the answer to the immovable vs unstoppable question. Sorry.
[/snark]
In all seriousness, I suppose the only way we’ll really be able to answer that question is to wait until such a situation arises in real life.
I think the better question is why would 2 people need collective bargaining. The ‘group’ that the pro-union worker is concerned with is himself. He can negotiate on his own behalf with his supervisor.
I’m fairly middle of the road politically, and I voted for Obama. This is the first litmus test for me to see if the “change” mantra has any action behind it. Needless to say, a lot of Labor money went into his campaign, and Labor (unions) want this passed, at the detriment to your average blue collar worker.
Put up of shut up time for me, as far as Obama is concerned.
In my situation, the company has multiple work centers, the majority of which are staffed by unionized workers. However, at my location, we are non-union/non-management, and there are only two company employees and two contract workers (who don’t have a say when it comes to union representation) under a single manager.
Last year, when we had four company employees, the union sent reps out in an attempt to sign us up. We decided that it wasn’t worth it–our manager treats everyone fairly and goes out of her way to accomodate everyone requests for days off/shift changes, etc. That’s all well and good until one person decides they’re not getting their share of O/T or if a new supervisor comes in and ends up being a jerk.
So, this IS a real-life situation, since one employee represents 50% of the non-contractor workforce.
I’m not sure if you’re aware… but unions are made up of blue collar workers. You’re suggesting that unions are supporting something that would ultimately destroy them.
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You’re just repeating what a union president (Olentzero) said above . Intimidation is the burden of the person who is being intimidated. Companies are not the police and have no input on union tactics outside of work. As I stated before, I’ve had union organizers take down my license number because I turned down their request to sign a card. It’s a matter of safety when presented with such tactics to sign the card and then vote no in a secret ballot.
I’ve never been intimidated by a company but you’re advocating intimidation as a quid pro quo. The example I gave of union intimidation was in stark contrast to the company meeting where the financial situation was outlined with information available to anyone who could read a stock report. We lost money for over 10 years and towards the end it was measured in billions. That was hardly intimidation to point out the obvious.
The Economic Policy Institute is funded by labor/union based organizations ( the Democracy Alliance, the Center for American Progress and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
Well, let me apologize completely for the snark, then. It would have been nice to have this background in your first post!
I guess from a specifically technical point of view, if one said ‘yes’ and the other said ‘no’ then there’d be no union, since the goal of 50% +1 hasn’t been reached. The ‘no’ voter’s concerns and arguments ought to be taken seriously and addressed by the union organizer if the voter’s willing to talk; otherwise I guess there’s no union.
Sorry for repeating myself. I do that when I’m trying to make a point.
No, I most certainly am not. I’m asking you, the one who is so quick to point out that the Employee Free Choice Act will open the gates to unfettered union intimidation, if you are absolutely sure that company intimidation against union organizing has never occurred. I don’t question the veracity of your personal experiences, but as the old chestnut goes: the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’.
And therefore what?
One last point I meant to address:
You’re right, but the point is not whether they have input on those tactics or not; the point is if they can prove those tactics were used to the NLRB, the card check results are thrown out and election by secret ballot is used. Companies may not be the police but they’ll certainly take that role on as far as their workforce is concerned. Especially if there’s any hint of union activity.
Why didn’t you say so before? That’d scare me too. Man… what’d he have… like one of those ball-point pens? Those things are dangerous.
So why’s the union guy writing down the tag numbers ?
Your glib assessment of what it’s like to have a union organizer track your vote is noted. Best of luck when it happens to you. However, my garage was set on fire about the time it happened. Fortunately, it was cold out and only burned the siding off on one side. But hey, its all good. I’m sure it was just kids.
It’s easy to fling opinion anonymously and make fun of union intimidation. It’s a different story when someone you don’t know does it to you.
The same privacy we take for granted as part of the political process is equally important when applied to union votes.
Just out of curiosity, what was the result of the union organizing effort in this case ?
Thanks spazattak, I’m well aware of who’s who in the zoo. But, like many others, I believe this legislation is a tool of the unions. And no, I don’t think the unions always have the best interest of the rank and file at heart.
Ah, so a lot of your dislike for unions is based upon speculation. What was the union, by the way? Maybe you should focus your negative attention on them, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
No one’s arguing against private votes. It’s time people drop that strawman.
What ?!
This brings up another question… how do you know the guy (whoever he is) was writing down your tag number?
How does that add up to you? How can you have a policy that’s bad for union members but good for the unions themselves?
And. This law doesn’t mandate a card check. It’s up to the workers to decide whether they would prefer to vote via a traditional NLRB election, or have a card check.
That’s the beauty of democracy: people have the power to choose.