Org Mobile Site
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 and intimidate every employee who doesn't sign a union card (like by posting maps to the homes of workers who don't comply). 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
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 and intimidate every employee who doesn't sign a union card (like by posting maps to the homes of workers who don't comply). 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
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...
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...
Wow. All the planets must be lining up or something. I am in complete agreement with CR and PJ.
Originally Posted by :
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 .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...
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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. 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 .
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...
Edit: Of course management is horrible in these companies, too. I will give you that.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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.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 .
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.
Originally Posted by Kush:
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! 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.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
An in-depth article on the folly of this bill is here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Labor/bg2027.cfm
CR
Alas, 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. An in-depth article on the folly of this bill is here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Labor/bg2027.cfm
CR
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.
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.
Originally Posted by article:
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. H.R. 800 would dramatically increase the penalties for unfair labor practices committed by employers, but not unions, during an organiz#ing drive'[/I],
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!
How does a secret ballot benefit the employers in fleecing their employees, Louis? I don't see it.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Originally Posted by 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?
Stick it at the man?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?
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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...usdom15797.htmWatch’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.”
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:
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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/...42528820080802The 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.
Oh and by the way--a simple check of wikipedia would have given you this:
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO