American Unions Fight Against Secret Ballots

[Crazed Rabbit]

American unions are in decline. Perhaps because workers see what unions did to our auto industry, or the historical mob connections. Or the fact that the main beneficiaries of unions are the leaders.

But big union organizers have decided to reverse this. Not by offering a better product; making unions more worthwhile for average employees to join. But by pleading for the government to make it easier for unions to intimidate potential union members to join.

That is, unions and big labor support the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act", which would remove an election with secret ballots as a requirement for forming a union. Once unions got a simple majority of workers in a business to sign a card saying they want to join a union, a union would be formed, with no election held.

Of course, a secret ballot is perhaps the fundamental part of free elections; it means no one can find out how you voted and intimidate you based on that. Unions say this bill would prevent employers from harassing employees, as though a secret ballot doesn't prevent that for most workers.

Unions, needless to say, don't point out that removing secret balloting makes it a lot easier for them to harass (http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/108th/eer/laborlaw042204/jacob.htm) and intimidate (http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/wp/uniondues72302/kipling.htm) every employee who doesn't sign a union card (like by posting maps to the homes of workers who don't comply (http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr_386.php)). They'll know who hasn't signed, and will be able to ask again and again, EU treaty style, until they get the right answer. Except unions have a taste for getting physical with those who stand up to them. And then all unions have to do is persuade workers to sign a card by using whatever manipulation tactic, usually pointedly devoid of discussion of the actual implications of a union contract, and concentrating on agitation against perceived slights from management.

This act removes the ability for workers to make a free and considered choice. Like saying an election takes place after enough voters sign cards saying they support the GOP ticket after listening to only republican supporters.

An in-depth article on the folly of this bill is here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Labor/bg2027.cfm

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Good post. Unions are one of the big reasons we've lost so much manufacturing in this country. When GM, Ford, and Chrysler file within the next year or two, we can thank the UAW for their major part in it... they've already got their VEBA's so they don't really care.

These kind of tactics have been going on for years. With the current level of government regulation in this country, do we really need these leaches? Its not 1900 anymore...

[Goofball]

Wow. All the planets must be lining up or something. I am in complete agreement with CR and PJ.

[Tribesman]

Unions are one of the big reasons we've lost so much manufacturing in this country. When GM, Ford, and Chrysler file within the next year or two, we can thank the UAW for their major part in it...
Given that other nations have bigger unions in their auto industry and make good money and continue and expand in their business , and considering that some of those companies operate in the US with the same US unions have you considered that the reason GM , Ford and Chrysler are doing so bad is not because of the unions but because their products are crap . In the same way that many British car manufacturers went to the wall because they built rubbish cars .

[PanzerJaeger]

Given that other nations have bigger unions in their auto industry and make good money and continue and expand in their business , and considering that some of those companies operate in the US with the same US unions have you considered that the reason GM , Ford and Chrysler are doing so bad is not because of the unions but because their products are crap . In the same way that many British car manufacturers went to the wall because they built rubbish cars .

Comparing, say, the German or Japanese union system to that of America's isn't apples to oranges, its apples to elephants.

And most foreign companies operating over here set up in the South, where union laws are lax to nonexistent, and are not unionized. Trouble is coming, though... (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/oh-what-a-feeling-the-uaw-targets-toyota/)


Edit: Of course management is horrible in these companies, too. I will give you that.

[Ice]

Given that other nations have bigger unions in their auto industry and make good money and continue and expand in their business , and considering that some of those companies operate in the US with the same US unions have you considered that the reason GM , Ford and Chrysler are doing so bad is not because of the unions but because their products are crap . In the same way that many British car manufacturers went to the wall because they built rubbish cars .

I'd partially agree with you. The blame always does fall back on the car manufacturers. Years back when gas was 80 cents a gallon, these companies were rolling in the dough. They pretty much caved to all the union demands because simply they didn't care. They were making so much cash that they could afford to pay the outrageous sums and benefits the unions demanded. I've posted this before, but $60 an hour to cut the grass? Who needs college? $28/hour for some to screw bolts on a car right out of high school? That wasn't real.

Fast forward a bit

Now these companies are struggling to sell these gas guzzling cars because no one wants to repeatedly fill up their gas tank at $4 a gallon. This creates reduced revenues along with less leases, etc. Coupled with what Tribesman said about the god awful cars and the outrageous union contracts these car companies had signed, bad things were soon to come.

The unions had a sweet deal going for a while, but eventually screwed themselves in the end.

[Goofball]

I'd partially agree with you. The blame always does fall back on the car manufacturers. Years back when gas was 80 cents a gallon, these companies were rolling in the dough. They pretty much caved to all the union demands because simply they didn't care. They were making so much cash that they could afford to pay the outrageous sums and benefits the unions demanded. I've posted this before, but $60 an hour to cut the grass? Who needs college? $28/hour for some to screw bolts on a car right out of high school? That wasn't real.

Fast forward a bit

Now these companies are struggling to sell these gas guzzling cars because no one wants to repeatedly fill up their gas tank at $4 a gallon. This creates reduced revenues along with less leases, etc. Coupled with what Tribesman said about the god awful cars and the outrageous union contracts these car companies had signed, bad things were soon to come.

The unions had a sweet deal going for a while, but eventually screwed themselves in the end.

Ouch! :sweatdrop:

[CountArach]

After doing a bit of reading on the Employee Free Choice Act, I sort-of agree with you CR. I think that Secret Ballots are a good thing and I can't understand opposition to them. That said, I like what the Act is about. If the majority of workers want Union representation, then they shold receive it. I've also looked at some stats from the AFL-CIO site (Don't worry, they cite many sources perfectly well. The stats are here (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/how/employerinterference.cfm).

Firing an employee for Union activity is wrong and when it is this wide-spread it needs Government action to ensure that it doesn't happen.

[Louis VI the Fat]

An in-depth article on the folly of this bill is here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Labor/bg2027.cfm

CRAlas, I must confess to not being well read up on American labour and union laws. However, it is my understanding that the Employee Free Choice Act improves the conditions for employees to join or form labour organizations.

Which, of course, is still but a small step to improve America's near nineteenth-century employee rights. US legislation is heavily tilted in favour of employers. For example, in a poor imitation of North Korea, American employers can actually force their employees to attend anti-union meetings during work hours. :smash:

The current secret ballot system only serves as an instrument for delay, obstruction and prevention of the forming of unions by employers. Considering how heavily laws are skewed towards employer rights, and the very limited protection workers enjoy against intimidation by companies, I for one applaud the new law. What changes under the new law, is that once a majority of employees have expressed their intent to unionise, whether through ballot or cards, employers must accept this decision, and can no longer demand a ballot on top of this election.

Whinging about secret ballots is obfuscation. The Employee Free Choice Act does not take away the democratic rights of workers. On the contrary, it strips companies from an instrument to obstruct employees from exercising their democratic rights.



H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organiz#ing drive'[/I], The 'what would Ronald Reagan do' site is correct. Penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers will dramatically increase indeed. Increase much more than penalties for for unfair labour practices by unions. That is because - and the 'in-depth article' conveniently fails to mention this - currently there hardly are any penalties for unfair practices by employers. Unlike the very harsh penalties for unions. This new law also takes a small step towards redressing this imbalance.


Who knows, with intiatives like these, small steps forward, American unions might one day enjoy the same rights as unions in advanced countries like the Philippines and Peru! :2thumbsup:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How does a secret ballot benefit the employers in fleecing their employees, Louis? I don't see it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This act removes the ability for workers to make a free and considered choice. Like saying an election takes place after enough voters sign cards saying they support the GOP ticket after listening to only republican supporters.



Watch’s investigation revealed that, in most cases, Wal-Mart begins to indoctrinate workers and managers to oppose unions from the moment they are hired. Managers receive explicit instructions on keeping out unions, many of which are found in the company’s “Manager’s Toolbox,” a self-described guide to managers on “how to remain union free in the event union organizers choose your facility as their next target.”

If workers try to organize, store managers must report it to Wal-Mart’s Union Hotline at headquarters. The company responds by sending out its Labor Relations Team almost immediately to squash the organizing effort.

Most of the Labor Relations Team’s tactics comport with weak US law. Team members hold small- and large-group “captive audience” meetings, which workers are strongly urged to attend. Workers hear of the terrible consequences of union formation and see videos dramatizing the message. Wal-Mart envelops workers with its anti-union mantra and allows little space for union supporters and organizers to respond – under US law, it does not have to.

“Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.”

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/01/usdom15797.htm

You're completely wrong. I'm actually amazed at how completely off track you are. By your very own argument you should be a rabid supporter of this bill.

Keep reading:



Human Rights Watch found that Wal-Mart heightens this fear with its arsenal of unlawful anti-union tactics. Wal-Mart has sent managers to eavesdrop on employees. According to former workers and managers at one store, it has even ordered the repositioning of surveillance cameras to monitor union supporters. It has told workers they will lose benefits if they organize. The company has discriminatorily banned talk about unions and prohibited union flyer distribution, while allowing discussion of other issues and circulation of non-union materials. It has disciplined union supporters for policy violations that it has let slide for union opponents. And it has illegally fired workers for their union activity.



The Wall Street Journal reported that about a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives had told them that unionization could force Wal-Mart to cut jobs as labor costs rise, and that employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return.

The Journal said Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings do not specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's presidential election, but they make it clear that voting for Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said.

Wal-Mart opposes proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act that would make it easier for workers to unionize, by signing a card rather than holding a vote.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUKN0142528820080802


Oh and by the way--a simple check of wikipedia would have given you this:


Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. Under the EFCA, an employer would no longer have the opportunity to demand a secret ballot election when a majority of employees have signed union cards and there is no evidence of illegal coercion.

...

Under the EFCA, a secret ballot election would only be held if more than 30%, but less than a majority of employees sign union authorization cards. A secret ballot election might be required if illegal coercion invalidates the results of a majority card check election.

[Veho Nex]

I must disagree with the starting arguments. I mean, I am myself being a union representative child, am listening to most pro union stuff all day. But its not that just pro union stuff I listen too, the union is a weird thing. Unless you have been a part of a union or, like me, grew up in a union family (As I am putting it), then the views on this matter are slightly different. For instance, did you guys know that unions do have secret ballots once every 2 years to elect new representatives, or did you know that if a union rep isn't doing what they are supposed to be doing, such as representing your problems to your employer, then they can be charged with serious crimes. I mean thanks to president Bush you can now go online and look at the yearly salaries of your local neighborhood union representative.

And then with a lot of you guys focusing on the automotive industry and their unions. Look at unions like Carpenters or Pile drivers unions. It is shown that your more likely to get work on a job site, like a bridge or sky scraper, when you are part of a union.

But for now this is a trickle of information I get from my dad. I would definitely like to get his opinion on this. Then you will get a direct opinion from a well respected union rep.

[Reverend Joe]

Ugh.

Corporate bosses, union bosses, political bosses, social bosses --

Man, why can't I just kill all the bosses? Wouldn't that solve 90% of our problems?

[CountArach]

Ugh.

Corporate bosses, union bosses, political bosses, social bosses --

Man, why can't I just kill all the bosses? Wouldn't that solve 90% of our problems?
Stick it at the man?

[Crazed Rabbit]

After doing a bit of reading on the Employee Free Choice Act, I sort-of agree with you CR. I think that Secret Ballots are a good thing and I can't understand opposition to them. That said, I like what the Act is about. If the majority of workers want Union representation, then they shold receive it. I've also looked at some stats from the AFL-CIO site (Don't worry, they cite many sources perfectly well. The stats are here (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/how/employerinterference.cfm).

Firing an employee for Union activity is wrong and when it is this wide-spread it needs Government action to ensure that it doesn't happen.

You do understand that a lot of people, by admission of the AFL-CIO, will sign union cards just to 'get the union off their backs"? That union cards are not a good example of what employees really believe?

As it is, workers can get union representation by voting, in a secret ballot where they can't be intimidated by employer or union activist, to join a union? They already have what you want.

And for the AFL's "stats", from my original link:

Even more misleading is the claim that "illegal firings and other discrimination against workers" occurred 31,358 times in 2005. The number comes from the 2005 annual report of the National Labor Relations Board.[30] The report shows that the NLRB ordered employers to pay that many workers back pay in 2005, but the NLRB awards back pay to resolve many types of disputes, only a few of which involve intimidation or organizing campaigns.

For example, if a company unilaterally changed working conditions by reducing hours to cut costs without first negotiating with the union, the NLRB would order the company to return to the status quo and bargain the changes with the union. The NLRB could also require the company to provide back pay to workers as though the changes never occurred by paying them for the hours that they would have worked had the company not reduced working hours. Asserting that all or even most awards of back pay are due to intimidation, fraud, or illegal firings during organizing campaigns is simply false.


“Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.”

And do they have a binding election right after that? Do they hold such meetings until 51% of employees sign "anti-union" cards and then say no election will be held as employees have rejected the union?

No. And frankly, I don't have a problem with employers having an advantage in talking to their employees about unionization. They own and run the company, and deserve to have a bigger voice, since union activists are out-of-town asses who agitate against a company that's been built with the sweat and blood of other, better, people. The activists have no interest if a company goes belly up or what happens, and will lie, extort and manipulate to get their way. They are in it for themselves, not the workers.

AlextPG, I'm assuming Louis is being sarcastic, mainly because of this:

Who knows, with intiatives like these, small steps forward, American unions might one day enjoy the same rights as unions in advanced countries like the Philippines and Peru!

CR

[CountArach]

They own and run the company, and deserve to have a bigger voice, since union activists are out-of-town asses who agitate against a company that's been built with the sweat and blood of other, better, people.
You are absolutely right. The workers are indeed better people.

The activists have no interest if a company goes belly up or what happens, and will lie, extort and manipulate to get their way. They are in it for themselves, not the workers.
I do believe the same thing could be said about many highly paid CEOs.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Good post. Unions are one of the big reasons we've lost so much manufacturing in this country. When GM, Ford, and Chrysler file within the next year or two, we can thank the UAW for their major part in it... they've already got their VEBA's so they don't really care.

These kind of tactics have been going on for years. With the current level of government regulation in this country, do we really need these leaches? Its not 1900 anymore...

Actually, the main reason that US auto companies, and US manufacturing as a whole, can no longer compete effectively with their foreign based counterparts is that many of these competing companies operations are government subsidized. Universal government subsidized health care being the largest difference. US manufacturing legacy costs for current and retired worker health care benefits can't possibly compete, cost wise, with foreign companies whose workers receive their health care exclusively through government.

As far as the rest of the anti-union comments go...I can't say labor unions are the perfect answer, but they sure as hell have been more of a positive than a negative. So tell me, do workers today enjoy things like:
40 hour work week
paid vacations and holidays
work place safety laws, rules, training, procedures, and equipment
a living wage and better benefits
the elimination of child labor abuse
collective bargaining
workers compensation for injuries & deaths on the job

At the turn of the last century many workers fought the "robber barons" for these and other benefits/rights, some paid with their lives, for the things that todays workers, union and non-union alike, seem to take for granted; as if it was always so.

Do you really believe that this would have come about without labor unions, out of the goodness of the "corporate heart"?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unions did do a lot of good; but like you said, it was a century ago. They are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They've gone from being necessary to being a way for union bosses to stay in the money.

CR

[CountArach]

Unions did do a lot of good; but like you said, it was a century ago. They are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. They've gone from being necessary to being a way for union bosses to stay in the money.

CR
The problem isn't Temporary at all. The Union constantly fights for more employee rights, as well as representing these employees in court due to unfair dismissal. I don't know about in America, but there was a huge Union backlash when our Government destroyed all semblance of basic worker rights last year. That led to the election of our current government, which are in the process of reversing most of the legislation. Without the Unions pointing out what the truth about this legislation, it is unlikely that this would have happened.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Union constantly fights for more employee rights, as well as representing these employees in court due to unfair dismissal.

More being the key word there. Is there no point where a happy equilibrium of rights is reached? Or should the unions always demand more and more concessions from employers?

That's the problem - they have to push for more things constantly after the initial issues are solved in order to remain in existence. Naturally, they reach a point where what they are demanding is not fair and equitable.

Do they protect employees from unfair dismissal? Yes, I suppose so. But they also protect employees from fair and proper dismissal as well.

And yes, it is temporary - the reasons unions began are largely not an issue - which is why unions are shrinking rapidly in the US.

CR

[CountArach]

More being the key word there. Is there no point where a happy equilibrium of rights is reached? Or should the unions always demand more and more concessions from employers?
Well it would seem that Employers are attempting to get more concessions and as such - yes the Unions should push for more.

Do they protect employees from unfair dismissal? Yes, I suppose so. But they also protect employees from fair and proper dismissal as well.
I can't help but feel that our definitions of fair and proper dismissal are vastly different...

[Tribesman]

I can't help but feel that our definitions of fair and proper dismissal are vastly different...
Well rabbit will probably come up with the usual one he or Xiahou use as an example of how hard it is to fire staff and how employers have to retain staff who are useless yet have to be retained even though they don't do the job they are paid for .
But since that is based on a system that predates trade unions and the proffesional organisations that deal with these cases are not trade unions and the people are not actually workers according to the law its a bit of a red herring .

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you're saying teacher unions are not equivalent?

But the simple thing is that Unions protect basically everybody; they are therefore going to protect some who shouldn't be, no? And employers are more likely to fire more bad employees than employees they simply don't like, as the businesses that do otherwise go out of business.



Well it would seem that Employers are attempting to get more concessions and as such - yes the Unions should push for more.

Always? I don't know where you're getting the idea that employers are constantly trying to get concessions from employees, either.

Anyway, it turns out George McGovern, the far-left liberal who got trounced by Nixon, is against this as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries


My Party
Should Respect
Secret Union Ballots
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008

As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.

The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.

There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.

To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.


CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No. And frankly, I don't have a problem with employers having an advantage in talking to their employees about unionization.

So you you only believe in democratic principles when it suits your purpose.


So you're saying teacher unions are not equivalent?

But the simple thing is that Unions protect basically everybody; they are therefore going to protect some who shouldn't be, no? And employers are more likely to fire more bad employees than employees they simply don't like, as the businesses that do otherwise go out of business.

Lot's of businesses can fire whoever they want without going out of business. What are you talking about? People get fired for bad reasons all the time, all the unions due is enforce "innocent until proven guilty".



[/quote]
Anyway, it turns out George McGovern, the far-left liberal who got trounced by Nixon, is against this as well:

"There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.

Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal."

[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia again, same quote:


Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union. Under the EFCA, an employer would no longer have the opportunity to demand a secret ballot election when a majority of employees have signed union cards and there is no evidence of illegal coercion.

...

Under the EFCA, a secret ballot election would only be held if more than 30%, but less than a majority of employees sign union authorization cards. A secret ballot election might be required if illegal coercion invalidates the results of a majority card check election.

The current environment (as you applauded earlier) is not democratic. Imagine a presidential campaign where the voters are only allowed to view pro obama, anti-McCain videos and known McCain supporters have their phone tapped. The bill lets the workers decide if they want a secret ballot.

Rabbit, it's quite simple. It is not in the advantage of the union members to drive a company out of business by demanding overly high wages. It is to the advantage of the people running the company to to screw over the employees in many many situations. Heck, if the company goes belly up the CEO's often get giant severance packages. So, companies do everything they can to keep unions out. You're arguing in favor of making the CEO's richer while the workers don't have decent health care. Wake up.

[drone]

Rabbit, it's quite simple. It is not in the advantage of the union members to drive a company out of business by demanding overly high wages. It is to the advantage of the people running the company to to screw over the employees in many many situations. Heck, if the company goes belly up the CEO's often get giant severance packages. So, companies do everything they can to keep unions out. You're arguing in favor of making the CEO's richer while the workers don't have decent health care. Wake up.

It is not to the advantage of the union members to drive a company out of business, but it might be in the interest of union leadership to do so by grabbing as much cash as they can. Both company and union leadership cannot be trusted.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you you only believe in democratic principles when it suits your purpose.

The company and the workers have a vested interest in what they do for a living. It is not undemocratic for the company to use its resources to make their case about unionization. Are you going to demand Obama doesn't use a cent more of the money he raises above what McCain raises?

You say its undemocratic because union jerks can be banned from company property (but not from talking outside of there). But it's like not allowing Canadians to vote in the US. The workers and management are the ones who are going to be affected, and they can talk on company property.


The current environment (as you applauded earlier) is not democratic. Imagine a presidential campaign where the voters are only allowed to view pro obama, anti-McCain videos and known McCain supporters have their phone tapped. The bill lets the workers decide if they want a secret ballot.

Yes it is - it's a secret ballot. That is the essence of democracy. Right now, unions want a supermajority of workers to sign cards before an election, because they recognize that everyone who signs a card won't really support the union in a secret election.

Think about that a bit, and how this bill would increase pressure on workers from unions to sign a card.



Rabbit, it's quite simple. It is not in the advantage of the union members to drive a company out of business by demanding overly high wages.

And yet that's what they've done in many occasions, like Detroit.


It is to the advantage of the people running the company to to screw over the employees in many many situations.

Um, no it isn't. Because it is to the company's advantage to have happy employees.


Heck, if the company goes belly up the CEO's often get giant severance packages. So, companies do everything they can to keep unions out. You're arguing in favor of making the CEO's richer while the workers don't have decent health care. Wake up.

Where I work the hundreds of hourly guys aren't union and it's a much better environment and relationship between management and workers than other, similar, locations around the nation. And employees still get paid well and have great health care, and they don't have to pay union dues.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The company and the workers have a vested interest in what they do for a living. It is not undemocratic for the company to use its resources to make their case about unionization. Are you going to demand Obama doesn't use a cent more of the money he raises above what McCain raises?

I'm talking about both sides being allowed to express themselves.



You say its undemocratic because union jerks can be banned from company property (but not from talking outside of there). But it's like not allowing Canadians to vote in the US. The workers and management are the ones who are going to be affected, and they can talk on company property.

I'm talking about about companies stifling any kind of pro union talk and threatening their employees.




Yes it is - it's a secret ballot. That is the essence of democracy. Right now, unions want a supermajority of workers to sign cards before an election, because they recognize that everyone who signs a card won't really support the union in a secret election.

The purpose of secret ballots is to allow people to vote without being intimidated. But right now they are being intimidated by the companies they work for and you don't seem upset about it. Read the article about walmart again.


Think about that a bit, and how this bill would increase pressure on workers from unions to sign a card.

Good. The company pressures the employees not to join a union and afl-cio can pressure them to join. If anyone is coerced into signing then a secret ballot will be held. I'm pretty familiar with the afl-cio's current effort to get people to unionize and it isn't coercive in the slightest.



And yet that's what they've done in many occasions, like Detroit.

If they knew what was coming they wouldn't have asked for the wages and GM wouldn't have agreed. Hubris is to blame not unions. Tribesman talked about this on page one I believe.



Um, no it isn't. Because it is to the company's advantage to have happy employees.

You're willing to say "and yet..detroit" but you don't have any examples for this one? Please. Since you're content to go with examples from the past I'll just say "child labor".

It's only in the company's advantage to have happy employees if it makes them more money. Most people can afford a lawsuit if they get sick from the chemicals in a factory (unless they have a union to provide a lawyer) so the company will make more money by screwing over it's employees.

Individual people in the company will treat employees badly even if it hurts the company--that's why everyone has a "lousy boss" story. People can't leave jobs freely. It's hard to get a job and people have to pay rent and buy food.



Where I work the hundreds of hourly guys aren't union and it's a much better environment and relationship between management and workers than other, similar, locations around the nation. And employees still get paid well and have great health care, and they don't have to pay union dues.

CR

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff5.cfm

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff6.cfm