American Unions Fight Against Secret Ballots

[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/SB1218...n_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.