I’ll repeat it again. The card-check isn’t a vote. The secret ballot remains in-tact assuming less than half have signed statements saying they support a collective bargaining unit.
Perhaps he was wrong and that isn’t what happened.
Take the example of one of my co-workers. During the most recent attempt to unionize our department, a union rep showed up at her home unnanounced and uninvited. Twice. Would you consider that acceptable?
How would you suggest union organizers organize workers?
They had already spoken to each of us during the workday multiple times. Contacting me at home is a different matter.
So the company gave the organizers access to the worksite?
Yes. Since I was on the clock and they decided to let them talk to us, then I was fine with that. (though it did start to get annoying after I told them several times that I wasn’t interested)
2 people step up to your car as you’re leaving work, one of them talks to you while the other stares at the front of your car and writes on a clipboad. I dunno, maybe he was a sketch artist.
The card check is not a private vote. What part of this does your brain not understand?
That’s not what the proposed law says. It retroactively makes the card check the vote if it exceeds 50%. The card votes are not private.
I can’t speak for all unions, or even all campaigns within the same union, but every campaign director decides how and when the organizers will talk to workers. Personally, it does seem a bit excessive to housecall workers when you’ve got worksite access, but again this isn’t an across-the-board rule for every union or every campaign.
Most employers obviously won’t give worksite access to organizers, so the only way organizers can talk with workers is at home. In my years of organizing, probably 1 in 30 workers takes serious offense with an organizer showing up on their door. (Maybe 1 in 15 in states like Kentucky or rural Missouri, 1 in 50 in places like Chicago or southeast Michigan or California.)
Contrary to what many of you here think, union organizers are doing what we do because we care about middle class America. We don’t get paid by the card, we don’t lose money if you guys vote no. But what we do is spend 25-28 days per month away from our families, in hotel rooms, 10-14 hours per day sometimes, talking to workers in the cold and heat and rain and snow, finding out what motivates you, what you’d like to see changed about your job, what you like about your job, and then trying to explain the process of how you can make change, improve your situation, and maintain what’s good at your workplace.
Do we get cranky or frustrated sometimes? Sure. But when you haven’t seen your wife or your kids or your friends in three weeks, when there’s a strong anti-union campaign being spearheaded by the boss who’s calling you an agent of the devil, and when you have to continuously watch your Ps & Qs more than your average nuclear engineer, as both the government and company are eyeballing your every move, things can get a little stressful. For this I apologize on behalf of all frazzled organizers everywhere.
Organizers aren’t getting rich. And we understand that most people don’t like opening their doors to complete strangers and talking about their jobs, so we often have an uphill battle. We aren’t breaking knees, slashing tires, setting garages on fire, because at the end of the day, where would that get us? At the bottom of an even steeper hill, and part of a completely impotent organization with members that don’t really want to be members.
We aren’t trying to fucking trick or intimidate anyone; we’re trying to organize the middle class back to relevance. In case anyone’s noticed, the middle class isn’t doing so well right now. Is it a coincidence that union membership is at an all-time low? Lately, it’s become a race to the bottom to make sure companies don’t have to pay retirement and insurance to all employees-- “Look! These companies aren’t giving as much to their employees! We need to lower our standards to compete!” I think this is the wrong direction to go, and that’s why organizers do what the do.
Corporate interest-holders are organized, they’ve realized working together they’re stronger-- chambers of commerce, industry groups, etc.-- for their own self-interest. They pay dues to their organizations, they vote democratically on things, they have lobbyists fighting for their interests. These corporate organizations are not looking out for the middle class. The middle class needs to organize and look out for itself. Our country did just fine when there was a high-rate of unionized workers-- better than we’re doing now.
I understand that it’s a rough job and trust me, I feel for you on that. But on behalf of the middle-class workers that don’t want to be unionized and are content looking out for their own interests, please leave us alone when we say we’re not interested.
If the workers still want an election, they can have it. An election is petitioned for at 30% or more. That means if 40% sign, they can have an election. If 50% sign, they can have an election. If 90% sign they can have an election. I’ve been part of campaigns where a majority signed cards, and the workers then had an election. What you claim is simply not a fact.
50%-plus-one card check recognition is not a new thing. It’s been happening for years, and like I said earlier, the names of people who sign a card is not public information. You can’t FOIA for it. It’s not available to the general public or rank-and-file. Card-check recognition also hasn’t caused the collapse of workplaces, public entities, stock markets, world governments or Mt. Rushmore. It’s just another option for union recognition. No less democratic than the old-school NLRB elections.
Oh, believe me, I do. I, for one, have better things to do than keep trying to get water out of a stone. 
The first major company I worked for matched union wages and treated it’s employees better than any union shop could expect. They did this by incorporating an in-house arbitration system. The difference is that fellow workers didn’t put up with slackers who made more work for everybody else. It may have been the exception to corporate America but it was a great place to work.
Nobody is questioning the ability to unionize. What is under question is our right to privately vote. This is no different than voting in a political election. It doesn’t affect unions in any legitimate way but it affects the people who vote.
Antinor, the difference in your attitude towards solidarity with gays and lesbians organizing to defend themselves and their rights and your attitude towards solidarity with working people doing the same thing is quite striking. How do you reconcile that?
Really. Who gets to decide your privacy is void?
You cannot justify taking privacy away from a vote. EVER
The difference is that I do not live in a right to work state. If my department were to join a union, I would have no choice but to be part of it. In pursuing the right to marry, those that don’t wish to marry don’t have to.
It’s the element of being forced to be part of it that really rubs me the wrong way. I would support a union representing my co-workers if I could opt out of it and not have to financially contribute to the union in any way. I believe that workers have the right to unionize, but those that don’t wish to shouldn’t have to choose between leaving their job or joining the union. I also believe that same sex couples have the right to marry, but I don’t believe there should be a forced decision to do so on those that don’t want to.
I’d argue that it does affect unions - namely, that the desire for union representation among working people is not matched by actual levels of union representation. The process needs to be made easier and card-check is the method to do it.
Furthermore, I think the secret ballot is more the exception than the norm - Congress doesn’t operate that way; the Supreme Court doesn’t operate that way; AFAICT state, county, and town councils don’t operate that way either. And yet I’ve never really heard any arguments anywhere that say this leaves members of Congress, SC judges, or other elected officials open to intimidation by anyone. The secret ballot has its uses, but in this case it’s clearly an obstacle to decision making rather than a political protection.
You guys are doing just fine in the civil service, including teachers. Could it be that there is no competition there ?
We live in an era of globalization, outsourcing and massive influx of unskilled labour, the latter supported by your unions themselves. Workers by and large have understand that, and realize you can do very little for them, and that their dues are wasted money. What’s happened in Detroit is a disaster, and not occuring elsewhere where auto workers have freely denied union representation.
I’m all for unions though, as a counter balance to corporate greed and oppression, but I’d like to see that option available in a fair manner.
Why lately ? Could it be that global competition with global low wages are pressuring American companies ?
So absent that condition, would you join a union?
No, because I don’t feel I need them. If my co-workers wished to join I would be happy to vote for them to be able to do so.