NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratically-controlled Congress is pushing what they refer to as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (House Bill: HR 1409, Senate Bill: 560). The information regarding this bill is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show. Essentially, however, this bill would do two very bad things:

1- This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation.

2- If the employees voted for a union, then the business would become closed-shop...in other words, all the workers would have to be part of the union (and likely pay membership dues). There would be no choice in the matter.

I have nothing against unions per-se. Some things in the bill (such as increased fines for businesses that try to interfere with the formation of a union) strike me as very good ideas. I reject, however, that I should be compelled to vote openly for or against a union (and thereby open myself to pressure from the interested parties), and I most especially reject the idea that I would have no choice but to join the union if it were to be formed. Not cool at all.

Definitely it should be a private vote. And the counts should be verified by a third party auditor such as Deloitte if they aren't already, instead of a union or employer official.

I have thought about this particular Act quite a bit, and while I don't necessarily agree with their methodology I am at a loss to find a better way.

Obviously I don't trust the motives of the people behind this, but how are they spinning it? In other words, what's the official party line as to the benefits of open voting?

Fundamentally, taking away the right to a secret ballot hurts the employee in two ways; if they vote against it, the company may hold it against the employee. On the other hand, as it was already mentioned, they may be the prospect of intimidation. Definitely a problem.

On the second aspect, I'm not so sure. Some unions here in Canada are already like that. The teacher's union, those who work for CRA... union membership is mandatory. Though, to a degree it does provide a bit of a collective mentality that allows for it to survive by ensuring equity for all its members.

Before she retired, my mom worked in an office environment where union membership was mandatory. Here's the thing though, there was NOT equality among the workers because there were actually two separate unions there. One was actually better than the other.

So mom got her union dues taken out of her check every pay period for years and years for the honor of being a member of the suck union, not the good one. And no, she couldn't switch.

Unions are useful things, so long as they remain in balanced contention with management (it is bad if either of the two sides gets too powerful). The ability to form and join unions should be strengthened, but you shouldn't be forced into it, you shouldn't have to declare in public whether you want a union or not, and you should be allowed to switch or leave unions at any time that you desire.

Ballots should be secret in my view.

Some companies actually prefer closed shops (Japanese car firms for example) because it is easier to negotiate with one body rather than several.

The Democratically-controlled Congress is pushing what they refer to as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (House Bill: HR 1409, Senate Bill: 560). The information regarding this bill is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show. Essentially, however, this bill would do two very bad things:

1- This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation.


From what I've heard, it is already possible to form a union with an open ballot. The difference is that, right now, it's the company that gets decide to which method is used, rather than the workers. This would shift that decision to the workers. It isn't making secret ballots illegal - it's just mandating that people who choose to vote in this way can form a union by doing so.

The way it works now is that a certain number of people have to publicly say they want a union, then there's lots of time setting up a secret ballot (if that's what the company wants) during which the company itself can engage in intimidation or even find reasons to fire those who were trying to organize in the first place. The opportunity for intimidation by someone will be there, regardless.

I hadn't heard that the bill required all unions to be closed-shop, so I'll have to look into that before I can comment on it.

The simpler and more streamlined you make the unionization process, the less capacity employers have (with their heightened power over the workplace) to interfere unfairly in it with pressure and intimidation.

It would make sense to have the additional election process with a secret ballot if there were actually some semblance of a level playing field. But there isn't.

I hadn't heard that the bill required all unions to be closed-shop

It obviously doesn't, because that would entail repealing Taft-Hartley and eradicating right-to-work laws (and going even further than that!), and no one has spoken of any such thing.

I think the OP's reference is simply a complaint about union shops, which already exist under today's system within non-right-to-work states.

The Democratically-controlled Congress is pushing what they refer to as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (House Bill: HR 1409, Senate Bill: 560). The information regarding this bill is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show. Essentially, however, this bill would do two very bad things:

1- This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation.

2- If the employees voted for a union, then the business would become closed-shop...in other words, all the workers would have to be part of the union (and likely pay membership dues). There would be no choice in the matter.

I have nothing against unions per-se. Some things in the bill (such as increased fines for businesses that try to interfere with the formation of a union) strike me as very good ideas. I reject, however, that I should be compelled to vote openly for or against a union (and thereby open myself to pressure from the interested parties), and I most especially reject the idea that I would have no choice but to join the union if it were to be formed. Not cool at all.

Um. We could argue whether your alleged effects 1 & 2 are really good or bad, but there is little point because neither are actually in the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.

Here one can find the text of the law. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/text) It does not contain the changes you allege.

Here is the summary of the law from your own source (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show):

Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.

Note that neither of the effects you object to are mentioned.

Here is an even more detailed (but somewhat pro-employer) summary of the law:

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (H.R. 1409) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on March 10, 2009. If passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 will impact employers in three significant ways.

First, where an employer opposes unionization, the Act eliminates the current requirement that a majority of employees must vote in favor of unionization, by private ballot in an organizing election, prior to the union being certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under the Act, “If the Board finds that a majority of the employees…has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.” Under this provision, employers lose vital procedural safeguards designed to ensure that employees’ voices are heard through a private ballot free of intimidation and coercion.

Second, the Act requires companies and newly certified unions to enter into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation. “The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years.” The decision cannot be appealed by either party.

Third, the Act dramatically increases the penalties employers face if found liable of discriminating against an employee in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . The NLRA currently provides that employees who are terminated for organizing activities are entitled to backpay and reinstatement. Employers who engage in other unlawful activities are subject to orders to cease such activities. If the unlawful conduct is egregious enough, an employer may be subject to a bargaining order – which means the employer is required to recognize and bargain with the union, even though the employer may have won the election. The Act would amend Sections 10 and 12 of the NLRA to provide penalties as follows: (1) if an employer is found to have discriminated against an employee for union organizing or other union-related activity before an initial collective bargaining agreement is signed, the employee is entitled to treble damages, in other words, the amount of backpay times three; and (2) Also, employers would be subject to civil penalties in an amount up to $20,000.00 for each unfair labor practice that the employer “willfully or repeatedly” committed during union organizing or other union-related activity. Unions, however, would not be subject to the penalty increase.

Again, your two "very bad things" aren't in there.

Finally, here is a pdf summary of the bill (javascript:HandleLink('cpe_79601_0','CPNEWWIN:child^toolbar=1,location=1,directories=0,status=1,men ubar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1@/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf');) from the AFL-CIO. Again, neither of your imagined horrors are mentioned.

1- This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation.

Never liked open ballots, but I dont think its quite as bad as youre spinning it.

2- If the employees voted for a union, then the business would become closed-shop...in other words, all the workers would have to be part of the union (and likely pay membership dues). There would be no choice in the matter.


This I support.

Um. We could argue whether your alleged effects 1 & 2 are really good or bad, but there is little point because neither are actually in the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.

Here one can find the text of the law. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/text) It does not contain the changes you allege.

Here is the summary of the law from your own source (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show):

Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.

Note that neither of the effects you object to are mentioned.

Here is an even more detailed (but somewhat pro-employer) summary of the law:

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (H.R. 1409) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on March 10, 2009. If passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 will impact employers in three significant ways.

First, where an employer opposes unionization, the Act eliminates the current requirement that a majority of employees must vote in favor of unionization, by private ballot in an organizing election, prior to the union being certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under the Act, “If the Board finds that a majority of the employees…has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.” Under this provision, employers lose vital procedural safeguards designed to ensure that employees’ voices are heard through a private ballot free of intimidation and coercion.

Second, the Act requires companies and newly certified unions to enter into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation. “The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years.” The decision cannot be appealed by either party.

Third, the Act dramatically increases the penalties employers face if found liable of discriminating against an employee in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . The NLRA currently provides that employees who are terminated for organizing activities are entitled to backpay and reinstatement. Employers who engage in other unlawful activities are subject to orders to cease such activities. If the unlawful conduct is egregious enough, an employer may be subject to a bargaining order – which means the employer is required to recognize and bargain with the union, even though the employer may have won the election. The Act would amend Sections 10 and 12 of the NLRA to provide penalties as follows: (1) if an employer is found to have discriminated against an employee for union organizing or other union-related activity before an initial collective bargaining agreement is signed, the employee is entitled to treble damages, in other words, the amount of backpay times three; and (2) Also, employers would be subject to civil penalties in an amount up to $20,000.00 for each unfair labor practice that the employer “willfully or repeatedly” committed during union organizing or other union-related activity. Unions, however, would not be subject to the penalty increase.

Again, your two "very bad things" aren't in there.

Finally, here is a pdf summary of the bill (javascript:HandleLink('cpe_79601_0','CPNEWWIN:child^toolbar=1,location=1,directories=0,status=1,men ubar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1@/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf');) from the AFL-CIO. Again, neither of your imagined horrors are mentioned.

Awesome. Hae I told you that youre the best generalite in existance?

Um. We could argue whether your alleged effects 1 & 2 are really good or bad, but there is little point because neither are actually in the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.

Here one can find the text of the law. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/text) It does not contain the changes you allege.

Here is the summary of the law from your own source (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show):

Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.

Note that neither of the effects you object to are mentioned.

Here is an even more detailed (but somewhat pro-employer) summary of the law:

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (H.R. 1409) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on March 10, 2009. If passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 will impact employers in three significant ways.

First, where an employer opposes unionization, the Act eliminates the current requirement that a majority of employees must vote in favor of unionization, by private ballot in an organizing election, prior to the union being certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under the Act, “If the Board finds that a majority of the employees…has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.” Under this provision, employers lose vital procedural safeguards designed to ensure that employees’ voices are heard through a private ballot free of intimidation and coercion.

Second, the Act requires companies and newly certified unions to enter into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation. “The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years.” The decision cannot be appealed by either party.

Third, the Act dramatically increases the penalties employers face if found liable of discriminating against an employee in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . The NLRA currently provides that employees who are terminated for organizing activities are entitled to backpay and reinstatement. Employers who engage in other unlawful activities are subject to orders to cease such activities. If the unlawful conduct is egregious enough, an employer may be subject to a bargaining order – which means the employer is required to recognize and bargain with the union, even though the employer may have won the election. The Act would amend Sections 10 and 12 of the NLRA to provide penalties as follows: (1) if an employer is found to have discriminated against an employee for union organizing or other union-related activity before an initial collective bargaining agreement is signed, the employee is entitled to treble damages, in other words, the amount of backpay times three; and (2) Also, employers would be subject to civil penalties in an amount up to $20,000.00 for each unfair labor practice that the employer “willfully or repeatedly” committed during union organizing or other union-related activity. Unions, however, would not be subject to the penalty increase.

Again, your two "very bad things" aren't in there.

Finally, here is a pdf summary of the bill (javascript:HandleLink('cpe_79601_0','CPNEWWIN:child^toolbar=1,location=1,directories=0,status=1,men ubar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1@/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf');) from the AFL-CIO. Again, neither of your imagined horrors are mentioned.

You and your pesky facts! :p

Um. We could argue whether your alleged effects 1 & 2 are really good or bad, but there is little point because neither are actually in the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.

Here one can find the text of the law. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/text) It does not contain the changes you allege.

Here is the summary of the law from your own source (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1409/show):

Under the bill, workers would be able to decide whether to hold a secret ballot vote on union formation after a majority of employees have signed union authorization cards, or to have the union certified based on the cards alone. Under the current rules, employers have the power to make that decision. The bill also designates a time line for first contracts to be drawn up between unions and employees and stipulates that if no deal is reached within 120 days, an arbitration panel will render a decision that will be binding for two years. Finally, it would increase the fines employers must pay if found guilty of violating their employees' right to unionize.

Note that neither of the effects you object to are mentioned.

Here is an even more detailed (but somewhat pro-employer) summary of the law:

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (H.R. 1409) was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on March 10, 2009. If passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 will impact employers in three significant ways.

First, where an employer opposes unionization, the Act eliminates the current requirement that a majority of employees must vote in favor of unionization, by private ballot in an organizing election, prior to the union being certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under the Act, “If the Board finds that a majority of the employees…has signed valid authorizations…the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.” Under this provision, employers lose vital procedural safeguards designed to ensure that employees’ voices are heard through a private ballot free of intimidation and coercion.

Second, the Act requires companies and newly certified unions to enter into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation. “The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years.” The decision cannot be appealed by either party.

Third, the Act dramatically increases the penalties employers face if found liable of discriminating against an employee in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . The NLRA currently provides that employees who are terminated for organizing activities are entitled to backpay and reinstatement. Employers who engage in other unlawful activities are subject to orders to cease such activities. If the unlawful conduct is egregious enough, an employer may be subject to a bargaining order – which means the employer is required to recognize and bargain with the union, even though the employer may have won the election. The Act would amend Sections 10 and 12 of the NLRA to provide penalties as follows: (1) if an employer is found to have discriminated against an employee for union organizing or other union-related activity before an initial collective bargaining agreement is signed, the employee is entitled to treble damages, in other words, the amount of backpay times three; and (2) Also, employers would be subject to civil penalties in an amount up to $20,000.00 for each unfair labor practice that the employer “willfully or repeatedly” committed during union organizing or other union-related activity. Unions, however, would not be subject to the penalty increase.

Again, your two "very bad things" aren't in there.

Finally, here is a pdf summary of the bill (javascript:HandleLink('cpe_79601_0','CPNEWWIN:child^toolbar=1,location=1,directories=0,status=1,men ubar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1@/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf');) from the AFL-CIO. Again, neither of your imagined horrors are mentioned.
At least one of those "very bad things" exists. How does the bolded section not mean that employees will no longer vote in secret? It appears that all the organizers need to do is collect enough "authorizations" and the union will be established without a ballot.

Interesting that the unions aren't subject to any increased penalties for harassment...

This I support.

You support closed shops?

Why?

At least one of those "very bad things" exists.

....according to an opinion piece. Note the statement that the employer loses a critical safeguard that is supposedly meant to protect the employees. Given the nature of union formation, that statement doesn't even make sense. What the employer is losing is a "safeguard" that made it less likely for them to have to deal with unions.

How does the bolded section not mean that employees will no longer vote in secret? It appears that all the organizers need to do is collect enough "authorizations" and the union will be established without a ballot.

If that's what the workers decide, yes. They can also decide to have a secret ballot. The difference here is who decides how to do it - it was the employer. Now it would be the employees.

Interesting that the unions aren't subject to any increased penalties for harassment...

The difference here is that unions don't have the same kind of power over employees that employers do. A union can't fire someone for voting against the union, so the government can't increase penalties on them for doing that. And increasing penalties on harassment across the board would affect a whole lot more than the unionization process.

here's the thing; unions only call for elections after they have the support necessary for winning. but because the law currently turns a blind eye to significant intimidation and fails to penalize that which it doesn't ignore, they lose a ridiculous percentage of those elections. card-check removes the intimidation factor in unionizing - no longer will employees be forced to attend anti-union meetings and one-on-one conversations with supervisors', to suffer a lengthy period where the benefits to the company just firing pro-union employees far outweighs the barely enforced penalties, and to be faced with other sorts of threats. this shit happens all the time. if you want to end employee intimidation as regards unions, then you have to stop the actual intimidators.

just as long as my states right to work status is protected i see no issue with the bill.

....according to an opinion piece. Note the statement that the employer loses a critical safeguard that is supposedly meant to protect the employees. Given the nature of union formation, that statement doesn't even make sense. What the employer is losing is a "safeguard" that made it less likely for them to have to deal with unions.



If that's what the workers decide, yes. They can also decide to have a secret ballot. The difference here is who decides how to do it - it was the employer. Now it would be the employees.

Huh? Opinion piece? I believe the text of the actual legislation does indeed say that a union can be established if enough "authorizations" have been signed -- meaning a majority and not in secret.

Considering that the employer will also be affected by this 'vote', he should certainly have the ability to request/require a secret ballot. Then the NLRB can step in and conduct the ballot, as they do now. No change needed.




The difference here is that unions don't have the same kind of power over employees that employers do. A union can't fire someone for voting against the union, so the government can't increase penalties on them for doing that. And increasing penalties on harassment across the board would affect a whole lot more than the unionization process.
I don't know what your experience with unions has been, but I have found them to be very influential about who gets work. The bosses at the union hall used to assign us to jobs - maybe that's peculiar to construction, but they could also yank you off a job.

And a union boss can certainly use other threats to intimidate a leaner to vote their way. They should be punished just as severely, should they be found guilty of coercion.

Huh? Opinion piece? I believe the text of the actual legislation does indeed say that a union can be established if enough "authorizations" have been signed -- meaning a majority and not in secret.

Can be, yes. Not must be.

But the part you bolded was an opinion on how that change would affect things.

Considering that the employer will also be affected by this 'vote', he should certainly have the ability to request/require a secret ballot. Then the NLRB can step in and conduct the ballot, as they do now. No change needed.

Why should the employer have a place in deciding whether or not the employees choose to organize themselves in negotiating with the employer? It seems to me that the people who choose how to decide whether or not to organize should be...well, the people who might be organizing.

I don't know what your experience with unions has been, but I have found them to be very influential about who gets work. The bosses at the union hall used to assign us to jobs - maybe that's peculiar to construction, but they could also yank you off a job.

And a union boss can certainly use other threats to intimidate a leaner to vote their way. They should be punished just as severely, should they be found guilty of coercion.

I've had no personal experience with unions, but I've seen others who had both good and bad experiences with them. They are made up of human beings after all.

That said, your example occurred after a union already existed. Thus, it has little to do with what might happen when a union is in the process of being organized.

just as long as my states right to work status is protected i see no issue with the bill.

'right-to-work' is shit. exists for no purpose other than undermining unions. like there really isn't a justification for it other than that.

Can be, yes. Not must be.

But the part you bolded was an opinion on how that change would affect things.



Why should the employer have a place in deciding whether or not the employees choose to organize themselves in negotiating with the employer? It seems to me that the people who choose how to decide whether or not to organize should be...well, the people who might be organizing.

Why the employer? Because he has the most to lose if the shop goes union. Actually the employees share in the loss, but they're too stupid to know that if they are even considering a vote.

But still, it should be the employer because he's providing the workplace.



I've had no personal experience with unions, but I've seen others who had both good and bad experiences with them. They are made up of human beings after all.

That said, your example occurred after a union already existed. Thus, it has little to do with what might happen when a union is in the process of being organized.
Doesn't matter if it's before or after a union is formed. If either party is found guilty of coercion, then they should be treated equally. The illegal coercive threats from a union boss or organizer are just as real as the illegal threat of termination from an employer.

'right-to-work' is shit. exists for no purpose other than undermining unions. like there really isn't a justification for it other than that.

If the only way a union can perpetuate itself is by forcing everyone to be a part of it, is it not on weak ground to begin with ?

If the only way a union can perpetuate itself is by forcing everyone to be a part of it, is it not on weak ground to begin with ?

what force is this you speak of? can people not get a different job if this one is not to their liking?

Why the employer? Because he has the most to lose if the shop goes union. Actually the employees share in the loss, but they're too stupid to know that if they are even considering a vote.

Clearly, you have an inherent dislike for unions. Why am I not surprised?

But still, it should be the employer because he's providing the workplace.

That type of attitude is exactly why people often find that they need to organize unions.

Doesn't matter if it's before or after a union is formed. If either party is found guilty of coercion, then they should be treated equally. The illegal coercive threats from a union boss or organizer are just as real as the illegal threat of termination from an employer.

They are just as real, but with different effects. Thus, they are covered by different laws.


'right-to-work' is shit. exists for no purpose other than undermining unions. like there really isn't a justification for it other than that.

I don't know about how it affects unions but, from what I've seen, "right-to-work" really ends up meaning "right-to fire." It's packaged as a protection for the worker, but is actually a way to give the employer more power over the employee.

Why the employer? Because he has the most to lose if the shop goes union. Actually the employees share in the loss, but they're too stupid to know that if they are even considering a vote.

But still, it should be the employer because he's providing the workplace.


If they are that stupid, then who should be blamed for hiring them?

If a shop wants to go union, then the management failed.

I have been through a unionization attempt. Teamsters in fact. We opted not to. However, I should note most of the obvious intimidation effort was the management. Taking pictures of people entering the room where the union organizers were, talking about job losses, etc.

what force is this you speak of? can people not get a different job if this one is not to their liking?

Why should I have to join a club to work ?
Are certain fields/locations pretty much not locked down by closed shops?
aka auto worker Michigan ?
If it is my calling to do that I should not have to join a club to fulfill that.

Why should I have to join a club to work ?
Are certain fields/locations pretty much not locked down by closed shops?
aka auto worker Michigan ?
If it is my calling to do that I should not have to join a club to fulfill that.

again, is not the standard 'economic liberty' argument to go find a different place to work? and if there are none that fit your standards, i guess you could try starting your own?

again, is not the standard 'economic liberty' argument to go find a different place to work? and if there are none that fit your standards, i guess you could try starting your own?

My willingness or unwillingness to join a union does not affect my ability to do the job. Why then should that factor in determining my employment options?

Should we allow workers and factor owners to agree on part affiliation for employment as well ?

My willingness or unwillingness to join a union does not affect my ability to do the job. Why then should that factor in determining my employment options?

Should we allow workers and factor owners to agree on part affiliation for employment as well ?

free-riding is bad, yo. you don't get the benefits of union membership without paying the dues. don't want the benefits, find a different place to work.

You support closed shops?

Why?

Well, for one, people shouldnt get the benefits of a union without actually being in the Union.

Another is without it, it encourages employers to higher people who wont join unions in their attempt to weaken said unions.

free-riding is bad, yo. you don't get the benefits of union membership without paying the dues. don't want the benefits, find a different place to work.

Last time I checked the benefits are paid for by my employer, and that is earned through work.

Well, for one, people shouldnt get the benefits of a union without actually being in the Union.

Another is without it, it encourages employers to higher people who wont join unions in their attempt to weaken said unions.

Why shouldn't people have the benefits of union negotiations without being in a union? I always thought the point of unions was to get better conditions for all workers, not just those who fill the coffers.

Last time I checked the benefits are paid for by my employer, and that is earned through work.

Not the benefits garnered by the union. They're only paid for by the employer because the union exists. Thus, it does make sense for you not to get said benefits if you aren't union.

I suppose there could be a system where a worker, by opting out of the union, also lost out on any benefits the union had negotiated. So if the union negotiated for a certain health plan, the non-union worker wouldn't be eligible. Or if the union negotiated a higher wage for certain workers, the non-union worker wouldn't get it without carrying out his own negotiations. And so on...

Why shouldn't people have the benefits of union negotiations without being in a union? I always thought the point of unions was to get better conditions for all workers, not just those who fill the coffers.

Why shouldn't people get all the benefits of the government without paying taxes?

Someone has to cover the expenses of the union. Those people should be the same ones who benefit from the actions of the union.

Last time I checked the benefits are paid for by my employer, and that is earned through work.

compensation in workplaces with unions is determined through the use of the collective bargaining process. that's where the free-riding comes in. without the collective bargaining process made possible by the union, you would not get that compensation at all.

Not the benefits garnered by the union. They're only paid for by the employer because the union exists. Thus, it does make sense for you not to get said benefits if you aren't union.

I suppose there could be a system where a worker, by opting out of the union, also lost out on any benefits the union had negotiated. So if the union negotiated for a certain health plan, the non-union worker wouldn't be eligible. Or if the union negotiated a higher wage for certain workers, the non-union worker wouldn't get it without carrying out his own negotiations. And so on...
That's true. But they would also be eligible for things that the collective can't receive. Merit raises, bonuses, etc aren't paid to those who are represented. Not to mention promotions -- unions are a bastion of seniority. They get the annual x% raise and that's it. No matter how hard they work, that's it.

Most employers reward hard work and merit. They reward it with promotions and with cash. I'll take my chances outside a union any day and leave the rest of y'all to be mediocre.

If they are that stupid, then who should be blamed for hiring them?

If a shop wants to go union, then the management failed.

I have been through a unionization attempt. Teamsters in fact. We opted not to. However, I should note most of the obvious intimidation effort was the management. Taking pictures of people entering the room where the union organizers were, talking about job losses, etc.
Doesn't change the fact that anyone who illegally intimidates someone over unionization should be penalized equally. Union or owner.

Why shouldn't people have the benefits of union negotiations without being in a union? I always thought the point of unions was to get better conditions for all workers, not just those who fill the coffers.

overall, yes. but in order to do so, you need to have strong unions in particular workplaces that do not allow free-riders. because if you don't have those, well, frankly, you wind up with the USian south, where the unions are not able to better the conditions for anyone.

Most employers reward hard work and merit. They reward it with promotions and with cash. I'll take my chances outside a union any day and leave the rest of y'all to be mediocre.

Hahahahaha.

At least one of those "very bad things" exists. How does the bolded section not mean that employees will no longer vote in secret? It appears that all the organizers need to do is collect enough "authorizations" and the union will be established without a ballot.


Huh? Opinion piece? I believe the text of the actual legislation does indeed say that a union can be established if enough "authorizations" have been signed -- meaning a majority and not in secret.

Considering that the employer will also be affected by this 'vote', he should certainly have the ability to request/require a secret ballot. Then the NLRB can step in and conduct the ballot, as they do now. No change needed.


Um. The alleged "very bad thing" in the OP was:

This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation. (emphasis added)

That is a complete misrepresentation of the change being made and your comments suggest you know that but are being contrary.

Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overview/national_labor_relations_act.aspx) currently provides (emphasis added):

(c) [Hearings on questions affecting commerce; rules and regulations]

(1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board--

(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section], or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; or

(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.

(2) In determining whether or not a question of representation affecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of decision shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief sought and in no case shall the Board deny a labor organization a place on the ballot by reason of an order with respect to such labor organization or its predecessor not issued in conformity with section 10(c) [section 160(c) of this title].

(3) No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Employees engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act [subchapter] in any election conducted within twelve months after the commencement of the strike. In any election where none of the choices on the ballot receives a majority, a run-off shall be conducted, the ballot providing for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of valid votes cast in the election.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the waiving of hearings by stipulation for the purpose of a consent election in conformity with regulations and rules of decision of the Board.

(5) In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) [of this section] the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling.


The relevant section of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 merely adds to the above section of the NLRA. Section 2 of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1409:) provides (emphasis added):

SEC. 2. STREAMLINING UNION CERTIFICATION.

(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

`(7) The Board shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (6). Such guidelines and procedures shall include--

`(A) model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (6); and

`(B) procedures to be used by the Board to establish the validity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments-

(1) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(b)) is amended, in the second sentence--

(A) by striking `and to' and inserting `to'; and

(B) by striking `and certify the results thereof,' and inserting `, and to issue certifications as provided for in that section,'.

(2) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES- Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (7)(B) by striking `, or' and inserting `or a petition has been filed under section 9(c)(6), or'; and

(B) in paragraph (7)(C) by striking `when such a petition has been filed' and inserting `when such a petition other than a petition under section 9(c)(6) has been filed'.

In sum, the change is that, if a petition for creation of a union is signed by a majority of relevant employees (and other unchanged circumstances exist), the Board will certify the creation of the union without requiring an additional secret election. This is a change from the current rules which require both a petition AND a secret election.

Nothing in this Act can be described as replacing a secret election with an open election. Thus, the alleged "very bad thing" is a fiction.

You provide other reasons why you dislike this change based on a clear dislike for unions, but that is another subject.

Why shouldn't people get all the benefits of the government without paying taxes?

Someone has to cover the expenses of the union. Those people should be the same ones who benefit from the actions of the union.

This goes against the spirit of unions. Unions were first created to give the working man a voice in their companies, to try and improve their working conditions.

It strikes me that the early unionists would be disgusted that the unions have taken the power to hire and fire away from the owners and then decided to wield it themselves in a abritary fashion.

overall, yes. but in order to do so, you need to have strong unions in particular workplaces that do not allow free-riders. because if you don't have those, well, frankly, you wind up with the USian south, where the unions are not able to better the conditions for anyone.

Or you end up with the UK where, even after Thatcher's edicts, the unions have the power to negotiate with employers and gain benefits for workers.

Doesn't change the fact that anyone who illegally intimidates someone over unionization should be penalized equally. Union or owner.

Which is already provided for in the National Labor Relations Act.

The proposed law doesn't change the restrictions on unions, but merely increases some of the penalties for employers.

This goes against the spirit of unions. Unions were first created to give the working man a voice in their companies, to try and improve their working conditions.

It strikes me that the early unionists would be disgusted that the unions have taken the power to hire and fire away from the owners and then decided to wield it themselves in a abritary fashion.

WTF are you talking about? Whether a "closed shop" or a "union shop" are good ideas or not, they don't do what you are alleging!

Moreover, it was early unionists that created the concept of a closed shop.

Most employers reward hard work and merit. They reward it with promotions and with cash. I'll take my chances outside a union any day and leave the rest of y'all to be mediocre.


If most employers acted like that my son, there'd be no fucking unions. The majority of places I've experience that are non-union have zero transparency
with regards wages, and have frequently been accused (quite rightly) of nepotism, cronyism and operating with a glass ceiling.

Um. The alleged "very bad thing" in the OP was:

This bill would permit employees who are voting on whether to form a union or not to decide on an open ballot as opposed to a secret ballot. The notion of a public ballot, however, is somewhat frightening. What happens to you if you openly vote against a union when most of your fellow employees vote for it? There is a tremendous opportunity for intimidation. (emphasis added)

That is a complete misrepresentation of the change being made and your comments suggest you know that but are being contrary.
...
In sum, the change is that, if a petition for creation of a union is signed by a majority of relevant employees (and other unchanged circumstances exist), the Board will certify the creation of the union without requiring an additional secret election. This is a change from the current rules which require both a petition AND a secret election.

Nothing in this Act can be described as replacing a secret election with an open election. Thus, the alleged "very bad thing" is a fiction.

You provide other reasons why you dislike this change based on a clear dislike for unions, but that is another subject.
Okay, maybe we're just mincing words here, but if you remove the absolute requirement for a secret ballot, then you have employees openly declaring on a petition that they would like to have representation. That's just like an open ballot to my way of thinking.

In fact, it's one step worse. The current situation allows a reluctant employee to sign the petition in order to avoid harassment from the organizers. Then that same employee can vote in secret to reject the union without any fear of a reprisal.

The proposed law would allow the organizers to prevail based on only the petition -- Correct? This petition is signed or rejected openly by those in the workplace. Either way, the organizers can pressure the workers for an indefinite time to get those last few signatures. I recall there is a time limit on the petition, but I can't find it in the excerpts you provide.

In any event, the 'streamlining' process provides a great advantage to the unions at the expense of a secret ballot. Does it not?

compensation in workplaces with unions is determined through the use of the collective bargaining process. that's where the free-riding comes in. without the collective bargaining process made possible by the union, you would not get that compensation at all.

so with out unions i would not get paid??? I doubt that.


More over I have sympathy for free rider issues when unions are politically involved. They do more then bargain with the boss don't they ? They seek to have laws passed in their favor do they not, lobby for various trade laws? Political affiliation should never be a requirement to get or keep a job.

Not to mention lock downs on professions for geographical areas makes finding alternative employment impossible. For instance try being a teacher in some states with out being part of the union. Its not like these states have a non unionized public school system I can opt into.

Which is already provided for in the National Labor Relations Act.

The proposed law doesn't change the restrictions on unions, but merely increases some of the penalties for employers.
As I've said, they should face the same penalties. Coercion is coercion -- when it's illegal, it should be punished equally.

WTF are you talking about? Whether a "closed shop" or a "union shop" are good ideas or not, they don't do what you are alleging!

Moreover, it was early unionists that created the concept of a closed shop.

So if you don't join the union you can be hired in a closed shop? I you leave the union you get to continue working in a closed shop?

I'll take a source on the early unionists being into closed shops and hold my hands up if I'm wrong.

As I've said, they should face the same penalties. Coercion is coercion -- when it's illegal, it should be punished equally.

*sigh*

Your fictional equalization notwithstanding, the law provides that different actions have different consequences.

I suggest you actually read the relevant provisions before you embarass yourself further.

I'll take a source on the early unionists being into closed shops and hold my hands up if I'm wrong.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1741.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/closedsh.html

Okay, maybe we're just mincing words here, but if you remove the absolute requirement for a secret ballot, then you have employees openly declaring on a petition that they would like to have representation. That's just like an open ballot to my way of thinking.

In fact, it's one step worse. The current situation allows a reluctant employee to sign the petition in order to avoid harassment from the organizers. Then that same employee can vote in secret to reject the union without any fear of a reprisal.

The proposed law would allow the organizers to prevail based on only the petition -- Correct? This petition is signed or rejected openly by those in the workplace. Either way, the organizers can pressure the workers for an indefinite time to get those last few signatures. I recall there is a time limit on the petition, but I can't find it in the excerpts you provide.

In any event, the 'streamlining' process provides a great advantage to the unions at the expense of a secret ballot. Does it not?

This change definitely makes it easier to form unions, which you appear to believe is a bad thing. It also makes it easier for employees to form a new union if they are unhappy with the existing one.

Regardless, this is neither a bad thing nor the "very bad thing" the OP alleged.

Or you end up with the UK where, even after Thatcher's edicts, the unions have the power to negotiate with employers and gain benefits for workers.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39910000/gif/_39910541_miners_strike_416gra.gif

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1741.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/closedsh.html

I think we're talking at crossed purposes. I'm looking at the idea of closed shops from a very British point of view.

That's true. But they would also be eligible for things that the collective can't receive. Merit raises, bonuses, etc aren't paid to those who are represented. Not to mention promotions -- unions are a bastion of seniority. They get the annual x% raise and that's it. No matter how hard they work, that's it.

That all depends on what the negotiated contract says, now doesn't it?

Most employers reward hard work and merit. They reward it with promotions and with cash. I'll take my chances outside a union any day and leave the rest of y'all to be mediocre.

Some employers do well without unions. Those are often the workplaces that don't have unions - because the management is already treating the employees well and they don't feel the need to unionize.


This goes against the spirit of unions. Unions were first created to give the working man a voice in their companies, to try and improve their working conditions.

Unions were first created to give those who joined the union a voice in their companies and improve their working conditions. Any benefit to non-union workers was just an additional perk.

And, if the union decided to call a strike and the company brought in new labor, the early unions were hardly known for improving their work conditions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

It strikes me that the early unionists would be disgusted that the unions have taken the power to hire and fire away from the owners and then decided to wield it themselves in a abritary fashion.

I don't really know where you're getting the idea that unions have taken the power to hire and fire away from the owners. Some unions do make it significantly more difficult to fire people - but that was part of the early union process as well.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39910000/gif/_39910541_miners_strike_416gra.gif

What's your point? I work at an open shop and we negotiate with the company and have achieved better than inflation pay increases for staff for the last 3 years (I can't speak to earlier because I wasn't around).

I don't really know where you're getting the idea that unions have taken the power to hire and fire away from the owners. Some unions do make it significantly more difficult to fire people - but that was part of the early union process as well.

I'm talking about closed shops, not unions in general.

I'm all for unions.

I think we're talking at crossed purposes. I'm looking at the idea of closed shops from a very British point of view.

Which is odd, given that the thread is very clearly about US laws regarding unions.

FWIW, Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/122178/closed-shop) says:

In the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, in all other industrial nations, a closed-shop provision is seldom found in a written contract, but it is understood in some industries that union members will walk off the job before they will work alongside nonunionists. This is so commonly assumed among printers, dockworkers, and miners in Britain that employers rarely attempt to employ nonunion workers. Throughout the nations of northern Europe, labour-management agreements are usually made between large industrial segments and a number of unions. In Britain, where union membership is taken for granted, the closed shop has not been as controversial as in the United States. Indeed, British government boards and commissions traditionally expect unions to represent all employees in an industry.

Regardless, you statement about how early unionists would have felt is without support and contrary to the existing evidence.

-snip awesomeness-

Nothing in this Act can be described as replacing a secret election with an open election. Thus, the alleged "very bad thing" is a fiction.

You provide other reasons why you dislike this change based on a clear dislike for unions, but that is another subject.

You're my hero. :fluffle:

An open ballot is definitely a bad thing, as is a closed shop. I was in a union for the better part of twenty three years, because it was closed shop. The union was useless and often detrimental to employee well-being - this was because the union had no incentive to try - why should they when everyone had to belong. They did as much harm to the employees as management, sometimes more. There were lies on both sides, there was abuse on both sides. If management perceived you as pro-union, you were harassed and bullied, if the union perceived you as being pro-management, you were harassed and bullied. The prevailing sense was "if you aren't for us, you're against us, there was no perception of neutrality.

I'm glad I'm out of it.

Finally, here is a pdf summary of the bill (javascript:HandleLink('cpe_79601_0','CPNEWWIN:child^toolbar=1,location=1,directories=0,status=1,men ubar=1,scrollbars=1,resizable=1@/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf');) from the AFL-CIO. Again, neither of your imagined horrors are mentioned.

How about from someone who isn't the AFL-CIO.

Which is odd, given that the thread is very clearly about US laws regarding unions.

I tend to speak of what I know and I don't know much about trade unionism in the US.

FWIW, Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/122178/closed-shop) says:

In the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, in all other industrial nations, a closed-shop provision is seldom found in a written contract, but it is understood in some industries that union members will walk off the job before they will work alongside nonunionists. This is so commonly assumed among printers, dockworkers, and miners in Britain that employers rarely attempt to employ nonunion workers. Throughout the nations of northern Europe, labour-management agreements are usually made between large industrial segments and a number of unions. In Britain, where union membership is taken for granted, the closed shop has not been as controversial as in the United States. Indeed, British government boards and commissions traditionally expect unions to represent all employees in an industry.

Regardless, you statement about how early unionists would have felt is without support and contrary to the existing evidence.

I was talking more of people like Robert Smith, those who fought for workers rights back in the days when laws didn't require employers to recognise TUs and as such closed shops were impossible. From what I've read those guys were just trying their best to promote workers rights, the idea of a closed shop was that far away they didn't even talk about them.

Again, if I'm wrong then I apoligise.

In fact, it's one step worse. The current situation allows a reluctant employee to sign the petition in order to avoid harassment from the organizers. Then that same employee can vote in secret to reject the union without any fear of a reprisal.


Which, knowing union organizers, is exactly what they do. Some are even willing to admit it in an open environment.

DQ: "Sure, they're supposed to be allowed to sign the cards on their own free will, but, what happens at the back door is something else entirely."




The Australian ballot is the only fair and just way to vote in any and every election.

How about from someone who isn't the AFL-CIO.

*looks at my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14616695&postcount=11).*

*sees text of bill and 3 different sources summarizing the bill.*

:confused:

(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

Which is precisely what I have a problem with. We cannot, under any circumstances, assume that an "petition" is free of coercion. As such, there must be a limited check. If the employees are freely willing to join the union, then there should be no problem with an independent, observed election by secret ballot.

*looks at my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14616695&postcount=11).*

*sees text of bill and 3 different sources summarizing the bill.*

:confused:

In effect, though, it makes it so that there is no inducement to the union to give a secret ballot. Rather, it gives the union sole bargaining power upon receipt of a sufficient number of signatures, and how likely is it that a union, especially an acquisitive one such as AFL-CIO, that they'll give their new capability a chance to be overturned?

Which is precisely what I have a problem with. We cannot, under any circumstances, assume that an "petition" is free of coercion. As such, there must be a limited check. If the employees are freely willing to join the union, then there should be no problem with an independent, observed election by secret ballot.

The sources I've seen may be (and some definitely are) biased, but apparently some studies support the notion that majority sign-up involves less coercion than secret election.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/why-majority-sign-up-is-needed.html
http://www.calaborfed.org/issues/organizing/msu.html
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/majoritysignup.cfm
http://www.seiu.org/2008/12/enemies-of-change-refuting-arguments-against-the-employee-free-choice-act-pt-1.php

In effect, though, it makes it so that there is no inducement to the union to give a secret ballot. Rather, it gives the union sole bargaining power upon receipt of a sufficient number of signatures, and how likely is it that a union, especially an acquisitive one such as AFL-CIO, that they'll give their new capability a chance to be overturned?

and if 30% of the workers strongly object, they can call their own election to decertify the union or to form a different one. moreover, if they can get 50%+1 to sign a decertification petition, then we already have reverse card check in place.

The sources I've seen may be (and some definitely are) biased, but apparently some studies support the notion that majority sign-up involves less coercion than secret election.

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/resource-library/why-majority-sign-up-is-needed.html
http://www.calaborfed.org/issues/organizing/msu.html
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/majoritysignup.cfm
http://www.seiu.org/2008/12/enemies-of-change-refuting-arguments-against-the-employee-free-choice-act-pt-1.php

Similarly biased:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm1393.cfm
http://www.nrtw.org/en/free-tagging/coercion

A fairer proposition can be found here:

http://traditionallaborlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/employee-free-choice-act.html

To address the separate problem of unbalanced speech, Congress should consider expanding unions’ opportunities for communication rather than reducing employers’ opportunities. Congress could help level the playing field by entitling unions to access employers’ non-work areas to communicate with employees on non-working time about the merits of unionization. A similar access provision appeared in the Labor Law Reform Act of 1977, which was defeated by a Republican filibuster.

In short, I agree that the current legal regime fails to adequately protect employees against employer coercion. Imposing harsher penalties will go a long way toward eliminating that coercion. In contrast, card-check certification would likely have a limited impact on employer coercion. Moreover, it poses significant disadvantages when compared to the secret-ballot election.

As it stands, the EFCA would cripple the ability of an employer to offer alternatives to unionization, and provide a mechanism by which a union could create itself without open discussion.

Of course, I'm biased against unions, but that's a very long story that involves a share of blood.

and if 30% of the workers strongly object, they can call their own election to decertify the union or to form a different one. moreover, if they can get 50%+1 to sign a decertification petition, then we already have reverse card check in place.

It's still an open ballot, which I am universally opposed to.

Even in elementary school, when we chose between dodgeball and kickball, we did secret voting. Why is it not appropriate for something as important as workplace rights?

The problem being, unionization is carried out with an established, often external, organization. Decertification would, by necessity, require a purely internally originating and organized effort. See the effective difference?

It's still an open ballot, which I am universally opposed to.

no it isn't

The problem being, unionization is carried out with an established, often external, organization. Decertification would, by necessity, require a purely internally originating and organized effort. See the effective difference?

yeah, i'm sure there aren't any established organizations out there that would be going all out to decertify unions. everyone knows that its the working slobs that have all the money and power and influence in this country.

no it isn't

It effectively is.



yeah, i'm sure there aren't any established organizations out there that would be going all out to decertify unions. everyone knows that its the working slobs that have all the money and power and influence in this country.

It's not the working slobs who form their own union I'm bothered with--that's something I'd wish people would do more often. It's large, conglomerated unions, with strong organizational skills, deep pockets and significant political clout. I'm not even bothered by the wobblies, it's the AFL-CIO who has the most capability to abuse.

My willingness or unwillingness to join a union does not affect my ability to do the job. Why then should that factor in determining my employment options?

Technically in jobs that require union membership to get the job your willingness to join does affect your ability to do the job, because you can't. :wink:


Last time I checked the benefits are paid for by my employer, and that is earned through work.

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#Free_rider_problem) US labor laws don't allow for unions to negotiate member only benefits so your benefits would be based on Union actions rather than solely your own merit.

so with out unions i would not get paid??? I doubt that.


In the 1910s, my great-grandfather worked as a coal miner in the southern US. There were no unions then. He reported that it was routine practice for the companies to fail to deliver payroll. Workers, who were paid in cash once a week, would go to the pay clerk's window on payday and find it locked and empty, or be told to come back the next day and the day after that, etc, or receive a half, a third, a quarter of their agreed to wage and be told their wage had been changed without notice.

This was just one example of first person eye-witness experience that I got to learn from, in a labor history in the US that is full of stories like that. Such abuses are the reason why there was a labor movement in the US, why people fought and died for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively for contracted wages, for a 40-hour work week, and host of other things that Americans nowadays think are the natural way to do business.

As has been pointed out by others, many times, unions do not exist where workers don't get screwed over by management. Don't sit and tell me how you think having unions might be bad for you. History tells us that not having unions actually was far worse for millions of people.

As has been pointed out by others, many times, unions do not exist where workers don't get screwed over by management. Don't sit and tell me how you think having unions might be bad for you. History tells us that not having unions actually was far worse for millions of people.

My father (and two of my uncles) actually spent years working for a place that didn't have a union. Every now and then, there would be talk of starting one, but it would get shot down pretty quickly. Why? Because the employer already treated the employees very well. Many of the guys who worked there were in their 30's or even 40's and had been working there since age 18. They had decent benefits, stock options, etc. There was no need for a union.

Eventually, the business changed hands. The new management didn't treat them as well. There were major layoffs pretty much right away, with no regard given to how long someone had been working there. Things started to go downhill. From what I understand, that is when they finally unionized. When there was new management and the new management wasn't holding up to the standards set by the old one.

It effectively is.

how so? the fact of needing the initial petition?

It's not the working slobs who form their own union I'm bothered with--that's something I'd wish people would do more often. It's large, conglomerated unions, with strong organizational skills, deep pockets and significant political clout. I'm not even bothered by the wobblies, it's the AFL-CIO who has the most capability to abuse.

yeah, and i can think of a few organizations out there with tons of resources and political clout that could presumably be marshaled to aid workers opposed to their unions. in fact, they already do it.

In the 1910s, my great-grandfather worked as a coal miner in the southern US. There were no unions then. He reported that it was routine practice for the companies to fail to deliver payroll. Workers, who were paid in cash once a week, would go to the pay clerk's window on payday and find it locked and empty, or be told to come back the next day and the day after that, etc, or receive a half, a third, a quarter of their agreed to wage and be told their wage had been changed without notice.

That's just blatant violation of contract.

This was just one example of first person eye-witness experience that I got to learn from, in a labor history in the US that is full of stories like that. Such abuses are the reason why there was a labor movement in the US, why people fought and died for the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively for contracted wages, for a 40-hour work week, and host of other things that Americans nowadays think are the natural way to do business.

As has been pointed out by others, many times, unions do not exist where workers don't get screwed over by management. Don't sit and tell me how you think having unions might be bad for you. History tells us that not having unions actually was far worse for millions of people.

And which is why I fully agree that unions are a vital part of a healthy and thriving democracy. They provide a counter point to businesses and accumulated wealth in the political discourse. They provide a balance to corporate organizational structures, and they provide an outlet for discontent. All very, very good things.

how so? the fact of needing the initial petition?

The initial petition gives the union sole bargaining power. That's what my problem is.



yeah, and i can think of a few organizations out there with tons of resources and political clout that could presumably be marshaled to aid workers opposed to their unions. in fact, they already do it.

And there should be checks on what employers can do, repercussions for inappropriate actions, but this is not the answer.

That's just blatant violation of contract.


And which is why I fully agree that unions are a vital part of a healthy and thriving democracy. They provide a counter point to businesses and accumulated wealth in the political discourse. They provide a balance to corporate organizational structures, and they provide an outlet for discontent. All very, very good things.
There was no contract until there was a union to negotiate and enforce it.

There was no contract until there was a union to negotiate and enforce it.

There was not a formal, written contract, no. There was a verbal, understood contract that a day's labor would result in a day's pay. When in violation, it can and should be enforced.

There was not a formal, written contract, no. There was a verbal, understood contract that a day's labor would result in a day's pay. When in violation, it can and should be enforced.
Wrong. There was no contract, no understanding. There was a lie. Pure and simple. Management lied to the workers, and because individual workers had no power to use as leverage against management, there was fuck-all any individual worker could do about it.

Furthermore, the imbalance of power made certain there was no avenue for enforcement of the worker's supposed understanding with management. Where was a solitary coal miner going to get the money to hire a lawyer to bring a suit for wages -- one who had the chops to out argue the companies' lawyers? Where was the worker's proof of what the agreed to wage was when he got hired? How was this lone coal miner going to get the political clout to influence state legislatures to support his rights or apply pressure for the appointment or election (depending on the state) of judges who would be either pro-labor or entirely neutral -- as opposed to the mine owners who were all personall connected to the politicians and local judiciary and were rich enough to buy and sell all of them at will?

Nice thought that fairness would dictate that the companies should have been forced to keep their word. Reality says it did not work out that way until workers organized and, by strength of numbers, gained the clout to make it happen.

Wrong. There was no contract, no understanding. There was a lie. Pure and simple. Management lied to the workers, and because individual workers had no power to use as leverage against management, there was fuck-all any individual worker could do about it.

Furthermore, the imbalance of power made certain there was no avenue for enforcement of the worker's supposed understanding with management. Where was a solitary coal miner going to get the money to hire a lawyer to bring a suit for wages -- one who had the chops to out argue the companies' lawyers? Where was the worker's proof of what the agreed to wage was when he got hired? How was this lone coal miner going to get the political clout to influence state legislatures to support his rights or apply pressure for the appointment or election (depending on the state) of judges who would be either pro-labor or entirely neutral -- as opposed to the mine owners who were all personall connected to the politicians and local judiciary and were rich enough to buy and sell all of them at will?

Nice thought that fairness would dictate that the companies should have been forced to keep their word. Reality says it did not work out that way until workers organized and, by strength of numbers, gained the clout to make it happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_contract

That's what I mean. There was a contract, the contract was violated, and the local government went along with it.

The initial petition gives the union sole bargaining power. That's what my problem is.

so, bring back minority unionism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_contract

That's what I mean. There was a contract, the contract was violated, and the local government went along with it.

Not to be petty, but I think you mean oral contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract). Written contracts are also verbal.

Which is precisely what I have a problem with. We cannot, under any circumstances, assume that an "petition" is free of coercion. As such, there must be a limited check. If the employees are freely willing to join the union, then there should be no problem with an independent, observed election by secret ballot.

1. The current system requires a petition as well, so I don't really see your complaint as anything other than "this makes it too easy for unions to organize despite employer opposition."

2. Except that there are many, many identified problems with labor elections.

so, bring back minority unionism?

Something that I would actually support.

Not to be petty, but I think you mean oral contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract). Written contracts are also verbal.

Slip of the fingers.

1. The current system requires a petition as well, so I don't really see your complaint as anything other than "this makes it too easy for unions to organize despite employer opposition."

An extra check is not a bad thing. The fact that there is currently a petition to get an election carried out makes plenty of sense to me. It gives a double-check to overcome any potential coercion. It gives a time and a place for opposing viewpoints to be aired. Most importantly, it's democratic.

2. Except that there are many, many identified problems with labor elections.

Such as? Whatever they may be call for reform and enforcement of the current system, not scrapping it.

I'd suspect that card check would have just as many, if not more, problems.

Not to be petty, but I think you mean oral contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract). Written contracts are also verbal.

Not to be anal, but oral?

Please tell me I'm not the only one who thought of that.

Sadly, the Democratic Party spends to much time kissing union ass, ignoring the reality that unions can be just as corrupt as any other large and powerful organization. I don't know if the OP's interpretation is fair and accurate, but if it is, I would encourage people to write to President Obama and ask him to support alterations to the bill to eliminate these problems (especially number one). If it recieves enough condemnation, he might even be persuaded to use his veto powers.

New developments on the 'card-check' front...
Fedex is buying 7.7 Billion dollars worth of airplanes from Boeing. Good! But not if they become a union company... FedEx realized the dangers and the additional costs of appeasing unions.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008918367_fedex25.html

FedEx said it may not buy 30 more Boeing 777 freighters if a federal law is changed to make it easier for its employees to join a union.

Following through on those orders and options, with a list price of $7.7 billion, depends on FedEx employees continuing to be under the Railway Labor Act, the company said.

That law, which covers FedEx workers because the company was founded as an airline, requires a national vote if employees want union representation.

So if we get the card check bill, Boeing can kiss $7.7 billion goodbye. Anyone else remember the '70s when Seattle just about shut down?