American Unions Fight Against Secret Ballots

[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