Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and others are against secret ballots for unionization

[tim_duncan2000]

Washington, DC (July 20, 2004) - In an issue emerging as a top election-year priority for organized labor officials, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John Edwards (D-NC) have joined with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to file formal arguments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) urging the agency governing America’s private sector workplaces to deny employees access to the less-abusive secret-ballot election process when choosing whether to unionize.

“For two politicians who claim they’ll stick up for America’s workers, taking away basic freedoms is a strange way to show it,” said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, 14 other Senators, and 31 congressmen joined together to file the amicus curiae brief, perhaps the most noteworthy of dozens of briefs filed last week by representatives of management, unions, employees, public policy groups, and Members of Congress – arguing either in opposition to, or in favor of, the plight of disenfranchised employees aided by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.

The Board invited the briefs after voting 3-2 to determine the enforceability of increasingly common arrangements intended to limit further employees’ freedom to determine whether union officials are authorized to represent them. These arrangements, sometimes called “card check” or “neutrality agreements,” involve high-pressure card solicitation drives that frequently result in complaints of union coercion from rank-and-file workers.

http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=330

I know they are just trying to court the union vote, but I don't know why they want to deny employees access to the less-abusive secret-ballot election process when choosing whether to unionize. A lot of people who usually side with unions say that the "card check" method is better because of how long the secret ballot method takes and how management sometimes to intimidate people into not voting to unionize. However, unions can also try to intimidate people (and often do) , and the article also points out that the secret ballot process is "favored by federal labor policy and the courts"). If it's favored by the courts, shouldn't the pro-union people agree with the secret ballot process? They seem to agree with other stuff "because the court says so".

 

[NightTrain]

I'm a union member of the IBEW, local 1547.

It seems to me that the worst thing you could do is take away the anonymity of the ballots on whether to organize or not. You're not protecting the people who stuck their necks out very well.

The employees are facing the very real threat of losing their jobs by casting a pro-union ballot; nevermind that it's illegal to retaliate against workers no matter what way they voted. Retaliation happens frequently against employees involved in failed attempts to organize, although the real reason is never spoken. That would be illegal.

To get around it, every non-union employer I've ever dealt with keeps a file on all employees. Everything negative that can be written down and put in your file will be. Some companies don't, they're the ones that haven't been sued for 'wrongful discharge' yet.

So they build a file on everyone, just for a rainy day. A union vote clouds up any employer's day quickly.

After a failed attempt to organize, there is a chance that (weird things happen) the employer will find out exactly who voted for going union. That's when that Rainy Day File rears it's ugly head.

IMHO, secret ballots are the best way to go. It's risky enough as it is even with secret ballots.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I found another article about a union's unfair tactics:

Cincinnati, Ohio (July 19, 2004) - Five Cincinnati firefighters today filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against an International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) union affiliate and top city officials for violations of the First Amendment by seizing compulsory union dues from the paychecks of scores of nonunion firefighters.

Receiving free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the firefighters charge that IAFF Local 48 union officials acted in concert with the City of Cincinnati and seized compulsory union dues from them without first providing an adequate independent audit of the union?s expenditures. The complaint also names Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken, among other top city officials, for signing and enforcing an agreement with the union that resulted in the unconstitutional acts.

The firefighters filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio?s Western Division. They allege that IAFF Local 48 union officials intentionally seized the forced union dues without first providing the financial disclosure and procedures required by a long-standing U.S. Supreme Court ruling interpreting that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect public employees from demands to pay for union political activity and other activities they may oppose.

http://www.nrtw.org/b/nr.php3?id=329

 

[5stringJeff]

Three words:

RIGHT

TO

WORK

 

[freeandfun1]

two more words:

F*ck

Unions

I was looking at a company to buy and when I found out the workers were union, I said, "no thanks". The company is now out of business. Oh well, the unions really helped those workers didn't they? Nobody would buy the company because of the union.

 

[insein]

two more words:

F*ck

Unions

I was looking at a company to buy and when I found out the workers were union, I said, "no thanks". The company is now out of business. Oh well, the unions really helped those workers didn't they? Nobody would buy the company because of the union.

Unions were a good idea back when. Now they are corrupt pawns of the democratic party. Just like the NAACP, a good idea has been destroyed in the name of partisan politics.

Unions are still a good idea in moderation. Too much union is just as bad as too much management. Need an equal amount of both to work good.

 

[NightTrain]

Well, I'm honest enough to admit that I have mixed feelings as far as unions go. My biggest beef with unions is the way they are constantly demanding that all union members vote Democratic. Kerry is the messiah as far as unions are concerned, according to my incoming mail, and I have a real problem with anyone arrogant enough to tell me how I should vote.

There are pros and cons to unions.

On one hand, I have firsthand experience with the professionalism of both union and non-union shops, and the union work is consistently much better than brand X. You can literally tell at a glance which side of the industry terminated a Cat 6 patch panel. Or terminated a fiber panel into a rack without a slack loop. I think anyone that's seen a few Demarcs & Comm Rooms will agree with me here. The difference in craftsmanship is night and day. I won't stupidly claim that all non-union telecom people are hacks, I have seen the occasional piece of work that was nicely done. But it's rare to see it.

I get paid over twice the hourly rate of someone that does the same work for a non-union shop. The benefits package for myself & family are incredible, the non-union guy generally has a bullshit package. However, the shop rates to the end customer are about the same. I'm all for the owner of a small business making the maximum amount of profit that he can, my hat's off to him. But he's going to do that by hiring a guy with substandard training that's willing to work for 15 bucks an hour and charge the same rate as the union company (going rate here in AK is roughly $80 / man hour).

If you're damn good at what you do, are you going to seek the highest payscale available? Damn right you are.

On the other hand, you have a lazy bastard that's useless that can't get fired for his incompetence because the utility he works for doesn't want to fight the union. Lots of them around. Typically, other co-workers pick up his slack. I've covered some useless bastards by fixing his screwups & shoddy workmanship because I happened to be on the crew and I refuse to have my name associated with substandard work.

I don't buy the 'unions make companies unable to compete' argument when all the shops here in Alaska charge the same amount. If that were the case, non-union shops would dominate this job market, when the reverse is true.