Your response makes no sense at all.
Why am I not surprised?
:rolleyes:
And I said in my post, my own experience with private citizens voting is that it is most often done openly. Secret ballot elections are far fewer in number than open votes.
As an aside, y’all do realize that there is no federally guaranteed right to vote, don’t you? I’m not saying there shouldn’t be one, but to talk about this bill “taking away people’s right to secret ballot voting” is disingenuous, since there is no federal (the level that this bill is being debated) right to vote.
Its in the National Labor relations Act.
Completely off topic, but perhaps you might indulge me by answering a question.
Say I’m an exceptional worker. Can the employer single me out for a pay raise over and above the union contract in order to keep me ?
Have you actually read the NLRA anytime recently? It does specifically mention the secret ballot as a method to be used under certain circumstances, but there is no language whatsoever defining it as an inalienable right. It merely says the NLRB is authorized to “direct an election or take a secret ballot (emphasis mine)” (29 USC § 153**) when:
[ul]
[li]an employee, group of employees, or labor organization assert that (i)they have been selected by the shop employees to represent them and the employer refuses to recognize them or (ii) the current organization representing them no longer does so - 29 USC § 159 (c)(1)(A); or[/li][li]the employer says one or more individuals or labor organizations claims the right to represent employees - 29 USC § 159 (c)(1)(B);[/li][li]more than 30% of employees say they want to decertify the union - 29 USC § 159(e)(1);[/li][li]a dispute between employer and employees cannot be settled, in order to avoid a strike, lockout, or other coercion - 29 USC § 173 (c); and[/li][li]an injunction during a national emergency has failed to produce a settlement within sixty days of issuing said injuction - 29 USC § 179 (b).[/li][/ul]
In fact, 9 USC § 159 (c)(1)(B) contains further language that says the NLRB must first determine whether “a question of representation affecting commerce” exists before they even get to the secret ballot stage. I’m not sure exactly what that means (Bo? Any help?) but it sounds like it allows for cases where the NLRB determines that they don’t even need to go that far, and the company has to suck it up and bargain.
If you look at the Employee Free Choice Act, the only affected section containing language regarding a secret ballot is § 159 (c). So while the ability to join a union has been streamlined, the secret ballot remains in place for both decertifying a union and settling disputes - and, using Bo’s argument, leaving those processes just as open to intimidation by management as they were before.
Dutchman, I can’t speak for all unions nor all contracts. I am not familiar with them, and have no intention of even trying to get to know the thousands of different contracts for different unions, trades and locations. I can only speak about my own local.
In my local, I can tell you that yes, an employer can and often does pay someone more than the contractually agreed upon minimum for their position in order to keep them working for that employer. The rates agreed upon in the contract are minimums, not absolutes. And as far as the union is concerned, why would we care? The employer is happy, the union worker is happy, and presumably the client hiring us will be happy. Win-win-win.
I am personally rather mystified at the comparisons to SSM being brought up here. Marriage, like unionization, should be an individual right. Individuals should be able to choose to marry (or not), and should be able to join or form a union (or not). Forcing people to join a union or get married (or preventing them from being able to do so) is a bad thing.
Now, it also seems trivially obvious to me that secret ballots provide more accurate information than non-secret ballots, especially in cases where being seen voting one way or another may have repercussions. I see absolutely no reason to refrain from an anonymous vote even if 100% of a shop signs cards. Also, I am with Antinor01 in that I am not comfortable with being forced into union membership because a majority of my co-workers wish to be in a union. I’m fine with a union requesting that my place of employment take 2% off my salary as automatic dues, as long as my place of employment is free to reply “No.” and fire everyone who strikes in response.
Why would your employer say no? Do you think they care who you give the money to after they pay you? You may have some misconceptions about what unions do and what they are about.
There’s no actual parallel; I brought it up because Antinor had another thread in which s/he (sorry, I don’t know your gender!) talked about getting actively involved against Proposition 8 in CA, something I completely agree with. I had a hard time picturing how it could be possible to stand in solidarity with one group fighting to defend its rights but not in solidarity with another, larger group doing the same thing. The subject was brought up more so that I could understand Antinor’s thinking rather than comparing the two.
Speaking of which, does my position on that make sense now? (and it’s he) 
I’m sorry I wasn’t able to look at this sooner; I had to leave the house to run Tofurkey Day errands. 
As far as I know, your interpretation is pretty close to correct. IANAL, but AFAICT what this means is that the employer has refused to bargain and the employees & their prospective union insist that he must because they have enough people wanting their representation. At this point there is a “question of representation affecting commerce” since the employees want representation and the employer is refusing to acknowledge this.
At this point, the NLRB can look at the situation, and if they determine that a sufficient number of people want representation by the union they will then set about to direct an election.
I don’t think this section applies once an election has been held, since the determination that there was a QCR (Question Concerning Representation) has already been reached prior to the vote.
Once an election has been held, if the union has prevailed, the employer is then obligated by law to negotiate in good faith with the union. This does not always happen. My own union, in more than once local in both the US and Canada, has been certified as the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) rep for Blue Man shows, and Blue Man flat out refuses to negotiate (they also refuse to negotiate with Musicians Unions, Actor’s Equity Guilds, etc.). At that point the NLRB has an internal board that reviews disputes of this sort, and if that doesn’t sort things out, it winds up in court or before an arbitrator.
I hope I helped clarify things, even if only a little.
Antinor - yes, a lot clearer. I still don’t agree with it, but it’s clearer.
Bo - well hell, I’m never going to see a Blue Man show! I see where I was incorrect in my interpretation; under current code there has to be an election if the NLRB certifies there are enough employees who said “yes” to the union. Under the Employee Free Choice Act is when the election would get skipped under 50% +1 and the NLRB sends it straight to negotiation. Yes?
No.
These lawyers can prolly 'splain the QCR better than I can. cite
You are correct, AFAIK, about the current law. When the NLRB determines that there are enough employees who said “yes” to the union, and the employer has refused to accept their representative for collective bargaining, a QCR determination is made. If it is determined that there exists a valid question about who is representing the workers (do they really want to be unionized, or would the majority rather each represent themselves?), the NLRB then directs an election.
Under the EFCA, this would still be true until the percentage of signed cards supporting the union as the CBA rep tipped over the 50% mark. At that point, no election would be necessary because the majority of workers have already decided that they would like to be represented by the union at the bargaining table. Things would proceed as if, under current law, an election had been held and won by the union-minded employees, and the employer would be directed to negotiate in good faith with the designated CBA rep (union).
Again, IANAL, just a union member who strives to stay informed about relevant laws and issues.
I thought that was what I said, but clarification is always a good thing.
You and me both, brother.
Ultimately, I don’t think any reasonable person would argue that unions are always bad or that unions are always good. As with just about everything in life, absolutes like that are senseless. What’s really at issue here, regardless of any other area where this might be the case or where related points have been made, is that in principle it is best to have a secret vote for any individual vote than one that is publically known, especially in the case where there is time preceding the vote for a person to be influenced negatively to vote one way or the other. This bill seems to remove that protection at a certain level for the American worker, and this is a bad thing. It would be better for the bill to address the disproportionate amount of power that the employer has over the employee instead. That’s all.
The National Labor Relations Act, first enacted in 1935, was an attempt to level the field enough for workers to be able to organize if they so chose. This bill is an attempt to bring the influence that unions and employers both have on workers/voters on an even keel. It’s not as if the EFCA would give unions a month of access to workers that employers don’t get.
The whole ballot thing is a red herring to focus people on something other than worker’s wages, working conditions, job security, pension security, etc. And I’m not sure you’re going to get many (on this board at least) to agree that “It would be better for the bill to address the disproportionate amount of power that the employer has over the employee”, since that is what closed shop laws are designed to do, and many do not agree with those laws.
Unions did not hold guns to the heads of the company negotiators. Profits were huge and the workers deserve a share. Many of the perks all workers enjoy were won by unions. Overtime pay,safe working conditions, vacations and other benefits were won by them. When I was at the Big 3 ,engineering was given the same benefits the unions got to prevent white collar workers from organizing.
The health care and retirement packages are the American way. We did not want universal heath care so we provide it at work. That of course is folded into the cost of the products. That is not a union problem.
Unions made the middle class which was a buying bonanza. They were a big engine of the American society and it’s buying power. Union membership has dropped commensurate with the dying of the middle class. It is not a better America now.
While I agree that profit sharing is a great tool for a company to compensate employees in a way that helps align everyone’s goals and actions, I think the word “deserve” is going too far. Do you also think workers should share in the losses when the company is losing money? If not, why not?
How is “deserve” going too far? Please explain your reasoning.