Secret Ballots!?! Where do you think you are, America?

[Don Corleone]

Buonosera,

I, uh, have been troubled by your reluctance to knuckle under to my racquet, uh join organized unions, over these past few decades. You don't like paying membership fees to me, your Don, erh, I mean your local? Don't you know this money buys you protection, erh, I mean representation and security? I think I'm going to have Lucco Brazzi come by your house tonight, maybe around 3AM, to sit down and explain the benefits of union membership to you, your wife and your children. Make you an offer you can't refuse. After all, with this new legislation, I'll get your personal info, and I'll get a record of how you voted.

Now, are you really sure you want to continue to defy the don? After all that money I spent this past fall to get my union racquet going again, erh, encourage Democracy and liberty?

For those of you wondering what I'm on about, Democrats in the House & Senate, apparently with White House approval, have waited exactly 6 weeks to trot out card-check legislation, something I was told was a delusional fantasy of us paranoid fruitbat right-wing cranks. Is that free beer I smell? By the way, Wal-Mart, one of the few people hiring as we approach double-digit inflation, got downgraded from a buy to a hold, on this.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't much care for unions, with the exception of some high-risk, poorly regulated industries. But take it from a former general manager of a Wal-Mart Supercenter that did 1.7 million in gross sales per week -- the anti union mantra of Wal-Mart borders on gestapo tactics equally as ridiculous as the union wackos who think they are jesus incarnate here to save us all. I'd be happy to go into detail later.

If people want to unionize they should be able to, their gain, their loss, live and learn whatever. But the crap that the left and Big Labor try to do to enable unions far reaching power is ridiculous. I mean seriously, get with the times. If a company treats its employees so poorly that they need to organize then by all means let them organize, but the key word is "organize", not have johnny-come-lately sign a card because people are pissed they have to work new years eve.

The fact of the matter is that the state and most companies adequately police themselves because it is good for business. So someone had to work some unpaid overtime or got a pat on the butt from the boss or got fired for being black. That really sucks, and there are ways to make it right that don't involve making everything union. God, no ballots, just a quick card check? Are you kidding me, the freaking paper boys would be union......

Out of curiousity, are the .orgs respective states right-to-work or pro-union shop. My state is not union shop, meaning if a business/sector is union then you are not required to join the union as a requirement for your hiring or continued employment. When this issue was being debated in oklahoma 10 years ago the pro-union shop folks went on and on about how rampant worker abuse would occur blah blah blh blah as if were making unions illegal or something. Well, the abuse hasn't changed and the economy has grown leaps and bounds, and not being pro-union shop has actually drawn companies here, and unions have not died out.

Hell, I even do my grocery shopping at a union supermarket because it's closest, but I must admit some of the service really sucks and the prices are slightly higher. Can you guess why?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To Clarify MRD's request for information for our non-usa types:

Union Shop = To be employed at company X, you MUST be a member of the union (one of the unions) representating workers at company X.

Closed Shop = You cannot be forced to be part of the union in order to work at company X, but must abide by the terms of the union-negotiated contract and cannot enter into an independent contract of your own with company X. Some places make you pay dues as though you were a union member.

Right to Work = You cannot be forced to be part of the union in order to work at company X, nor are you required to abide by the terms of a union contract.


Unionization (organizing) is permitted in all states. Once a sufficient number of employees express an interest in forming a union at a particular company and/or facility, an establishment vote is conducted by secret ballot to determine if a majority of employees wish a union to be formed.

One aspect of the proposed legislation is to make this establishment vote (or disestablishment votes that are held to de-unionize a unionized workplace) a vote that does NOT require a secret ballot. As Don C's OP suggests, opponents believe this will lend itself to union thuggery and intimidation tactics.

[CountArach]

As Don C's OP suggests, opponents believe this will lend itself to union thuggery and intimidation tactics.

Alright, can this be clarified for me - How can the Union be thuggish and intimidatory if, by definition, it doesn't actually exist yet?

Further, why would the Union do this?

Two questions I just don't understand. I can see the Democratic argument against this (And I fully respect that position and even find it attractive myself, despite my own overtly pro-union views) but I'm not quite sure why these two points are used.

Thanks for clearing up the terminology as well Seamus, it was useful for us non-yanks.

[Yoyoma1910]

Well CA, to learn this first you should locate Jimmy Hoffa.

[CountArach]

Well CA, to learn this first you should locate Jimmy Hoffa.

Umm.... okay?

Union, in answer to your first question, means organizing arms of existing national union organizations. That's what this is about; the existing unions want to make it much easier to organize other groups of workers.

Ah, I thought that might be the case. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I at least understand that point.

Why? For money and power - the new union members pay fees to the national organizations that organized them. The fees mean more money for the union leaders and more political power.

I see no problem with unions having more political power - the only way that workers can get anything out of politics is if they organise and use their numbers to show their strength. United we stand, divided we fall, etc.

Have you got any statistics on union leader's pay? I can't find any myself (after a quick bought of googling).

So we're not talking about oppressed groups of workers banding together, but outside groups agitating to form unions so those national union groups can make more money. That's the reason behind the unionizing drives; money and power, not looking for workers to help.

But again, that power is to the benefit of those who are now entering into unions, not to the union leaders themselves. Further, if there is a problem with the union leader wielding the power irresponsibly, what is to stop the members from voting him out at their next election? Or are most unions not democratised in the US?

As I've said though (In the previous debates we have had on this issue) I don't like the card check system and I do prefer secret elections (Though then again I also support compulsory union agreements in many cases - I'm under one myself and I earn far more compared to other people in similar ununionised jobs). Then again I wouldn't exactly mourn the passing of this law - anything that gives rise to more unoins is fine in my book. The idea is good, I just don't like the methodology.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Alright, can this be clarified for me - How can the Union be thuggish and intimidatory if, by definition, it doesn't actually exist yet?

Further, why would the Union do this?

Union, in answer to your first question, means organizing arms of existing national union organizations. That's what this is about; the existing unions want to make it much easier to organize other groups of workers.

Why? For money and power - the new union members pay fees to the national organizations that organized them. The fees mean more money for the union leaders and more political power.

So we're not talking about oppressed groups of workers banding together, but outside groups agitating to form unions so those national union groups can make more money. That's the reason behind the unionizing drives; money and power, not looking for workers to help.

Now, in relation to card check;
With this law, a union can be organized if a organizers get 50%+1 of the workers to sign cards indicating they want to join a union. Previously an employer could request a secret election for the employees to decide. So with card check the union knows everyone who has and has not signed. And another way this is different from an election, besides the secrecy, is that you can't simply say no once. The union can and will just keep asking until they get the signatures they need. You could say 'no' for fifty times in a row but you'll still count as a 'yes' if you sign the card after that.

I'll assume you can see the potential for abuse and pressure. It simply isn't a fair way to decide an issue. Currently, more people sign cards than vote yes for unionization in secret elections. The national union organizations know this and try to get a super majority (I've seen a figure of 75%) of people to sign cards before they try to get the new union formed (as the employer almost always asks for a secret election).

CR

[Whacker]

Unionization (organizing) is permitted in all states. Once a sufficient number of employees express an interest in forming a union at a particular company and/or facility, an establishment vote is conducted by secret ballot to determine if a majority of employees wish a union to be formed.

I am not 100% sure of this, BUT I believe my current state of residence (North Carolina) does not allow unions in any shape or form. There is no teacher's union here in the state for one.