American Unions Fight Against Secret Ballots

[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.

[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...uniondiff5.cfm

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