The way I see it, the “union shop” is the equivalent forcing those that oppose gay marriage to accept it. An open shop or right-to-work philosophy matches my view on SSM. It allows those that want to participate the opportunity, but doesn’t require anyone that disagrees to be part of it.
I would view that as protecting the people that chose not to join the union. Why should non-members be penalized because the union workers decided to strike?
Your first statement is correct, as far as my union brothers and sisters are concerned. Perhaps I wasn’t clear; it was very early when I wrote that. 
What I meant was: suppose there are two companies. Company A uses union workers. Company B uses non-union workers. Client C needs some work done, so both companies bid on the job. Both companies will charge the same amount to perform the work required for this job. Company A has a smaller profit margin on the job because it uses union workers who have negotiated a good wage for themselves. Company B will have a higher profit margin, because it’s non-union employees have not been able to negotiate a consistently good wage; i.e. they pay their workers less than the union scale. Company A is ok with the smaller profit margin, because they know that Client C will be very happy with the work performed, and will come back to them the next time he is in town. This means that the union workers will get a paycheck next month (or year, whatever), while the employees of Company B will get one check, and no repeat business.
Life is about repeat business, folks.
Anyway, yeah, what I was trying to say in my first post is that we do better work for the same price to the client, because our employer pays us better than a non-union employer, which gives us incentive to do a better job, be more knowledgeable, etc. because we want people to want to continue to use our services.
With my union, and my employers, it’s usually a win-win-win situation.
If you are against unions, you need to ask yourself: when do I think it would be okay to band together with people with a common interest, in order to work to secure what we believe would be best for ourselves, our families, and our communities?
No employer will give you what he feels he can withhold. Even my union brothers and sisters know that it is self-interest that keeps employers signing contracts with us, not altruism. That is why we work hard, work smart, and keep the clients coming back.
Tell that to the workers of company A in Detroit. GM, Ford or Chrysler.
Tell that to me when I got drywall quotes for my first house I built. Company A at $10,000, Company Bs at $4000. Last time I ever invited a union company to bid.
Or an incentive to fuck the dog knowing the union will protect you.
[quote]
So do you want California to recognize SSM or not? Because if you do, you’re forcing those in California who oppose SSM to accept it. Furthermore, say California recognizes it but Nevada doesn’t. What happens to a California gay couple vacationing in Nevada if one partner is badly hurt and requires hospitalization? If they were in CA his spouse would have the legal right to make decisions about medical care whereas in NV that right doesn’t exist.
The whole point is this: Those who oppose unions or SSM aren’t just saying “We opt out” and leaving it alone. They’re making it difficult for unions to organize and SSM to be recognized. That’s the whole problem with the “state’s rights” philosophy. It allows the bosses and the bigots to beat unions and SSM back.
Because, simply put, the union isn’t striking just for their own members. If they win, wages go up for the whole shop, either through the non-members saying “Hey, give us some of that too” to management or non-members thinking “Hey, the union won some good stuff” and joining themselves.
Striking isn’t penalizing non-members - it’s not like striking union employees get their full wages or have their bills deferred when they’re on strike, either. Again, you’re looking in the wrong place for the dividing line - it’s not union workers vs non-union workers, but workers in general vs management. The company’s well-organized, and as Snowboarder Bo pointed out they’re trying to maximize profits through keeping wages down (among other things). Workers need organization to fight back against wage freezes and wage cuts, as well as make workplaces safer and working days reasonable. Unions were formed to do just that. Yes, non-members are going to get caught up in those fights, but it’s completely wrong to view it as the unions punishing them.
Emlisting another issue into your argument only shows how bereft of merit your argument holds
Ya,ya, the bosses are bigots and opposing unions means “beating back” :rolleyes:
I guess all would be well if they unionized corporate management right up to the CEO . :rolleyes:
I just don’t think we’re going to agree on this. I’m coming at it from the viewpoint that unions are good for some people and I support their right to join/form one. Your view seems to be that unions are the best option for everyone.
As I said before, the fault is not with the workers. They did not make the decisions re: parts, design, process, materials, engineering. If Detroit designed a better car than Toyota, they would outsell Toyota. But they don’t. And it’s wrong to blame the line workers for decisions made by management, including signing the contracts with the UAW. That decision was made by management, and management alone.
Surely most people realize that the stereotyping and generalizing you are doing here is completely wrong. It’s the same type of argument bigots use to justify their feelings.
Obviously we live in a different world. Mine is full of people cooperating to achieve multiple goals. Yours seems to be full of people trying to get what they can for themselves with little or no regard for anyone else. Part of what unions are about is helping people realize that it doesn’t have to be that way; we can all work together and all prosper.
Live better. Work union.
There seems to be a lot of obtuseness going on in this thread. It appears that people opposed to this law are concerned about the potential for the removal of a secret ballot that it would facilitate if it is passed. This seems to be a fair and legitimate concern. All the rest of the arguments seem irrelevant to the OP.
If the law passes and unions are able to organize and gain legitimacy based on 50+1% of open ballots, then the window is open to intimidation from the union side. The fact that intimidation may occur from management’s side does not invalidate this concern. It would seem to me that in any case where a vote is taken it is always better for it to be secret. This is simple protection for the people involved.
Further, it has been noted but should be repeated that intimidation and coercion can take many forms, from threats of violence to ostracization and favouritism. People who vote against a union could face these from union-favouring fellow employees and this can affect both their quality of life and their careers and earning potential. These are legitimate concerns as well.
If there really is a concern over management indiscretions and bullying in the face of unionization, it seems to me that the better course of action would be for this bill to focus on addressing those issues, rather than removing the secret ballot in certain conditions. This would be far better in for workers than opening them up to intimidation from the other side. If this passes the American worker is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place, and that will make everyone worse off in the end.
My main point here is that the ‘right to work’ system is clearly set towards discouraging union activity instead of protecting a workers’ freedom of choice, since you stated earlier that you thought it should be expanded across the whole country. I certainly won’t deny I’m an unashamed supporter of unions! 
And I’d love to see a 58% unionization level in this country, which is far more reflective of workers’ attitudes towards unions than the current 12%; the Employee Free Choice Act is a step in that direction and I support it wholeheartedly.
scule, organizing for a union is a very polarizing issue. This thread should be example enough of that. But there’s a very large difference between intimidation as an official tactic employed by unions while organizing for recognition and the individual reactions of pro-union workers to anti-union workers. The former can and should be rejected by unions and carry appropriate legal punishment (i.e. invalidating the card check results and submitting to a secret ballot). The latter can be addressed by the union in the workplace and worked against so that union members treat their brothers and sisters on the shop floor with dignity and respect. (There should also be the expectation of having the favor returned!)
One factor I think the secret ballot supporters are overlooking is this: People aren’t going to refrain from discussing the union in the days or weeks preceding the vote. It’s going to be pretty clear where individual workers stand on the issue and the others in the shop are going to react accordingly depending on where they themselves stand. The only way a secret ballot would protect people is if nobody discussed the issue at all so no one knew how anyone else was voting.
One last thing: Would any of you on the other side argue that the 58% support for joining a union I’ve repeatedly cited is a product of union intimidation?
I don’t argue that unions are polarizing, but that seems to be the case with every issue in your country (I’m from Canada, for reference). And I agree that it is most likely bad apples acting on personal interest rather than under direction of the union (or potential union) that would likely be the ones intimidating and coercing people. Further, I am well aware that people will discuss things together and you may very well know where a person stands, secret ballot or no. But, and this is the most important part in this whole debate, it is the actual vote that matters. Everything else becomes irrelevant after the votes are cast because the votes are what decide things. And if a vote is not secret, then it limits the right of a person to make a choice entirely of their own accord and opens them up to having to consider the consequences of disagreeing with others. This is a very bad thing. A vote must be free from coercion and intimidation or the result gives no legitimate mandate.
That’s why I’m saying that if the real issue is not with organizing unions but with management abusing their power to topple such organization, then the bill should address this, and I think everyone here will likely agree.
scule, you make some good points here, and you make some that we’ve already addressed and debunked, namely the notion that all votes (or even most) are done as secret ballots. In fact, most voting is done openly. US Senators and Representatives vote openly on the floor, as do city councils, county commisioners, state legislators, and most organizations when dealing with issues. The only time that we have secret ballots is during elections of officials, and issues that appear on those same ballots.
There is no “if”. It happens, and it happens all the time. I’ve seen it firsthand, but you don’t have to take my word for it.
from his book Confessions of a Union Buster, 1993
His book is excellent reading and is available at amazon.com, if anyone cares to educate themselves more about this issue. You could also peruse the wikipedia article on union busting.
If reading isn’t your thing, you can watch Martin Levitt speak.
South Carolina has a special history of union busting, which continues in the 21st century.
And as a last note in this post, these words from Nelson Lichtenstein, Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Sought to proscribe, but sadly were unable to. The deck is stacked on the employers side both legally and economically. Labor unions do not seek to control the employer, only to make the enterprise profitable & pleasurable for all involved.
In it’s current form, it sounds like the right-to-work laws are making it difficult for those that wish to join a union and as I’ve repeatedly stated I believe that is wrong. I also don’t see any reason that it couldn’t be modified so that those that wish to join and those do not can both be accomodated.
Not sure if I mentioned this earlier, but the question no longer directly affects me. I changed positions in the company (in part because of the unionizing attempt) into a new role that would not be subject to a union anyway. So this is largely theoretical for me at this point in my career.
I don’t have enough information to have a strong opinion on that. It could be any number of things. It could be intimidation, it could be that 58% are well informed and genuinely believe a union is best for them, it could be that they are not well informed and have a nebulous belief that it would be better and so on. I’m just not in a position to take a stance in any direction on that question.
The bill does address this, by providing that if a majority of workers sign cards indicating their desire for a union, then there will be no period before a secret ballot where an employer has unfettered access to the workers to threaten, harass, lie, intimidate, etc.
I was under the impression that the bill would remove the process of having a secret ballot if a majority of the workers signed the cards. Just so I’m clear, is the bill stipulating that in the case of a majority signing cards, there will be a secret ballot but it will be held immediately or within a very short timeline, limiting management’s ability to intimidate? Or are you saying that a majority of workers can sign the cards, removing the secret ballot as an option and thus preventing management from being able to intimidate?
If it’s the former, that could be good so long as there is time to inform the workers. If the latter, then there is still the issue of intimidation and coercion from the union side. This being the case, it would still remove from the workers their right to anonymous personal voting. This must be protected, or any vote cast is suspect.
As to the point about there being other votes cast publically, those things listed are all votes cast by persons acting as representatives for a group of people (constituents, staff, whatever). Those are not individual votes, they are votes that are intended to be cast as a reflection of a collective will. As such, they must be public so that the people who are being represented by the vote can see how they are being represented.
Also, I’m well aware that management does work against unions. It goes both ways but the scales have probably tipped towards management being the bad guy overall (no cite, just a gut feeling, not really relevant anyway). That still doesn’t change the fact that in principle a person should be free from intimidation and coercion in their decision-making process. If one side or the other has the ability to bully or intimidate, then that needs to be addressed, and I really don’t see how removal of secret ballots accomplishes this. There have to be better ways to address the management-worker power imbalance if such exists.
Your second option here is correct. And it’s not me saying it, that’s the language of the bill(s) under discussion, just to be clear.
This is a good point, but not totally accurate. In my union, we vote on proposals by voice vote during General Membership meetings. I can’t say for sure how all other unions work, but I have been to several GM meetings for other unions, uncluding IBEW, UAW, Teamsters, LIUNA, UBC, AFSCME and AFL-CIO, and they all conduct voice votes on issues that require membership approval. It isn’t just unions that hold voice votes, either. Many organizations do so.
It isn’t the removal of secret ballots that accomplishes this; it is the removal of a period where the employer has unfettered access to workers for 8 hours per day, 5 days per week to intimidate, cajole, lie, etc. It is unrealistic to think, for example, that the minute a union gets 30% of workers to sign cards that a secret ballot election is held. Ballots need to be printed, NLRB oversight has to be scheduled, a determination of exactly who is eligible to vote must be done, etc. There is a lot that has to be done to ensure the integrity of the ballot process, and during that time, the employer has unequal access to the workers/voters.
I’m sure many of us would be willing to evaluate proposals to remedy the inequity of access, and I’d be happy to read and debate the merits of any other possible solution to this problem. But so far, this is the best proposal of it’s kind I have heard.
I forgot to mention earlier that this is not how I view my employers, nor our clients. And anyone who does voice this type of sentiment in my local may soon find themselves unable to obtain steady work.
It is interesting that that’s how you see things, tho. Says a lot.
Thankyou for making my point. So that is how you treat your members who speak up against dogfuckers.
There is a huge difference between an open vote of public officials & representatives and the vote of private citizens, which is most akin to the topic here.