Workers need free choice act

[michiganFats]

Spiderman, you are technically correct about the card check procedure, but let's face it, the employer will always ask for a secret ballot. I've heard of instances when the employer didn't demand a ballot, but they're kind of like Big Foot. Whenever I have heard about it, it was always "some guy knows a guy who has a cousin whose girlfriend overheard someone who had seen it".

I've been through this process three times, and if anything the employers get much friendlier. Economic arguments and paycheck bottom line were used all three times in my case. Once the cards go to the NLRB, only the truly stupid employers will act out in order to gain revenge, because any firings or disciplinary actions during that process are going to be suspect. I don't know how the rest of the country does it, but here in Michigan an employer who attempts to meddle in this process will be heavily fined.

 

[duggy]

Keep the secret ballot.
I've been a union member for 40 years.
There are other forms of intimidation besides tire irons and ball bats.
After the above mentioned 40 year membership I find my pension soon to be taken away by the UAW in order to try and save G.M. and the union as memberships slip away. Don't endorse a bill that will give the unions more power. They no longer have the ability to guarantee job security. Our industries are all either moving overseas or are foreign owned.

 

[Missourian]

Republicans should add an amendment that if secret ballots aren't important, federal and state election voting should be open to the public as well.

If we abolish the right to secret ballots for union elections...we should abolish secret ballots for all elections.

Why? I can't remember the last time I voted in a campaign where one of the candidates had the power to hire or fire me.

We vote for a lot more than candidates for political office...Prop 8 in California is probably most famous and Prop 2 in Missouri for stem cell funding.

Many ballot initiative are highly emotionally charged in the local community including smoking bans, tax initiatives and bond issues. Abolishing secret ballots would open voters to the possibility of retaliation.

Amazingly, this is exactly the same result most expect from eliminating secret ballots in union elections.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spiderman, you are technically correct about the card check procedure, but let's face it, the employer will always ask for a secret ballot.

Not true. Some don't.

I've heard of instances when the employer didn't demand a ballot, .

Told you so.

Once the cards go to the NLRB, only the truly stupid employers will act out in order to gain revenge, because any firings or disciplinary actions during that process are going to be suspect. I don't know how the rest of the country does it, but here in Michigan an employer who attempts to meddle in this process will be heavily fined.

It isn't illegal for an employer to lie and say he will close a plant (store, restaurant, etc.) if it unionizes when in actuality he wouldn't.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Scrap 'em and start over with something realistic that actually benefits both employer and employee.

If you think trade unions should exist to benefit EMPLOYERS, I think you really don't have a clue what's going on here.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Republicans should add an amendment that if secret ballots aren't important, federal and state election voting should be open to the public as well.

If we abolish the right to secret ballots for union elections...we should abolish secret ballots for all elections.

Why? I can't remember the last time I voted in a campaign where one of the candidates had the power to hire or fire me.

We vote for a lot more than candidates for political office...Prop 8 in California is probably most famous and Prop 2 in Missouri for stem cell funding.

Many ballot initiative are highly emotionally charged in the local community including smoking bans, tax initiatives and bond issues. Abolishing secret ballots would open voters to the possibility of retaliation.

Amazingly, this is exactly the same result most expect from eliminating secret ballots in union elections.

And how many voters were employed by doctors who want to do or are doing stem cell research?


The card check procedure is already not secret. The signers are already open to intimidation. You don't sign a card check unless you want a union because, as I've already pointed out and you've agreed - a union can form without a secret ballot.

You can't have a process entirely insulated from retaliation unless an election is held automatically on a regular basis without having to have a card check.

 

[michiganFats]

Spiderman, you are technically correct about the card check procedure, but let's face it, the employer will always ask for a secret ballot.

Not true. Some don't.

I've heard of instances when the employer didn't demand a ballot, .

Told you so.

Once the cards go to the NLRB, only the truly stupid employers will act out in order to gain revenge, because any firings or disciplinary actions during that process are going to be suspect. I don't know how the rest of the country does it, but here in Michigan an employer who attempts to meddle in this process will be heavily fined.

It isn't illegal for an employer to lie and say he will close a plant (store, restaurant, etc.) if it unionizes when in actuality he wouldn't.

LOL at "told you so". You're right, an employer can attempt to tell his workers that the union will bankrupt him. Would you buy that? I never did. The common argument up here during the unionization drive for smaller companies in the early and mid '90's was that a union would result in slightly higher bennies, but would negatively impact your take home pay and bonuses, and I think that there was some validity to that argument when it came to smaller businesses.

I'm not against the idea of unions, but I'm hesitant to give them anymore of a legal boost then they already have, because they're not in a weak position right now. Their problem is PR, not legal.

 

[Missourian]

The card check procedure is already not secret. The signers are already open to intimidation. You don't sign a card check unless you want a union because, as I've already pointed out and you've agreed - a union can form without a secret ballot.

You can't have a process entirely insulated from retaliation unless an election is held automatically on a regular basis without having to have a card check.

You have defeated your own argument...a secret ballot election insulates from retaliation from either side.

If a union cannot win a secret ballot election...wait for it...those employees don't want a union.

When your friend at work asks you to sign a check card you may sign it out of peer pressure or friendship or any number of reasons. In a secret voting both it is a different story, you can vote the way you choose without fear of retaliation.

To remove that protection would be a travesty.

 

[WillowTree]

The card check procedure is already not secret. The signers are already open to intimidation. You don't sign a card check unless you want a union because, as I've already pointed out and you've agreed - a union can form without a secret ballot.

You can't have a process entirely insulated from retaliation unless an election is held automatically on a regular basis without having to have a card check.

You have defeated your own argument...a secret ballot election insulates from retaliation from either side.

If a union cannot win a secret ballot election...wait for it...those employees don't want a union.

When your friend at work asks you to sign a check card you may sign it out of peer pressure or friendship or and number of reasons. In a secret voting both it is a different story, you can vote the way you choose without fear of retaliation.

To remove that protection would be a travesty.[/QUOTE]



not to mention communism!

 

[DiveCon]

The card check procedure is already not secret. The signers are already open to intimidation. You don't sign a card check unless you want a union because, as I've already pointed out and you've agreed - a union can form without a secret ballot.

You can't have a process entirely insulated from retaliation unless an election is held automatically on a regular basis without having to have a card check.

You have defeated your own argument...a secret ballot election insulates from retaliation from either side.

If a union cannot win a secret ballot election...wait for it...those employees don't want a union.

When your friend at work asks you to sign a check card you may sign it out of peer pressure or friendship or and number of reasons. In a secret voting both it is a different story, you can vote the way you choose without fear of retaliation.

To remove that protection would be a travesty.

i think he posted the wrong card
that looks like the same thing i did when i joined a union years ago
but the shop was already a union shop

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Spiderman, you are technically correct about the card check procedure, but let's face it, the employer will always ask for a secret ballot.

Not true. Some don't.

Told you so.

Once the cards go to the NLRB, only the truly stupid employers will act out in order to gain revenge, because any firings or disciplinary actions during that process are going to be suspect. I don't know how the rest of the country does it, but here in Michigan an employer who attempts to meddle in this process will be heavily fined.

It isn't illegal for an employer to lie and say he will close a plant (store, restaurant, etc.) if it unionizes when in actuality he wouldn't.

LOL at "told you so". You're right, an employer can attempt to tell his workers that the union will bankrupt him. Would you buy that? I never did. The common argument up here during the unionization drive for smaller companies in the early and mid '90's was that a union would result in slightly higher bennies, but would negatively impact your take home pay and bonuses, and I think that there was some validity to that argument when it came to smaller businesses.

I'm not against the idea of unions, but I'm hesitant to give them anymore of a legal boost then they already have, because they're not in a weak position right now. Their problem is PR, not legal.

"You're right, an employer can attempt to tell his workers that the union will bankrupt him. Would you buy that?"
? Isn't that what the Republicans are blaming the bankruptcy of failure of the automobile industry on? Unions?



He doesn't have to tell them that a union will bankrupt him if he owns 1000 stores - he just has to tell them he'll close down that one store that they work at.

Unions are in a weak position. Union membership as a percentage of the wage earning workforce has been declining for years. The ability of mega-corporations to successfully prevent union formation is a huge cause of this.

 

[driveby]

Have you ever even seen one of these cards?

It says "I authorize a local union of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, to represent me in collective bargaining with my employer."


It doesn't say "I want a secret ballot election to determine if the employees at my workplace want union representation" - its not a petition, its a vote for unionization.

then they have changed them


actually, that looks like the card you do after the union is already representing the rest of the employees and you wish to join

Now you're just full of shit

When you look in the mirror, the words dickless wonder have to appear. I'll play your pussy neg rep game as long as you want....

 

[michiganFats]

Some republicans are trying to blame the auto mess on the unions, not all of them. It is my opinion that our current predicament was caused by non-union jobs in the supply chain being shipped overseas. The auto companies basically fired their domestic customer base, that's not really a union issue, and intelligent people understand that.

A guy who has 1000 stores can threaten to close one, but how many times does that scenario arise? Why would a union try to organize one and leave the other 999 alone? And don't tell me it's because the employees are running the show, your example is unlikely.

I agree that unions are in a weak position, I just disagree as to why. Any entity that can force a vote with only 30% support is not in a weak legal position (I may be wrong on the 30%, that's what it was last time I went through this, I haven't yet looked up what the number is today).

The problem is lack of support from the public, and miscalculation on the part of some of the larger union heads. Forcing through legislation that is unpopular is the worst possible thing that can happen right now, IMHO. Unions need to do a much better job of explaining to the public why collective bargaining is important, and why it is not socialist.

 

[driveby]

Some republicans are trying to blame the auto mess on the unions, not all of them. It is my opinion that our current predicament was caused by non-union jobs in the supply chain being shipped overseas. The auto companies basically fired their domestic customer base, that's not really a union issue, and intelligent people understand that.

A guy who has 1000 stores can threaten to close one, but how many times does that scenario arise? Why would a union try to organize one and leave the other 999 alone? And don't tell me it's because the employees are running the show, your example is unlikely.

I agree that unions are in a weak position, I just disagree as to why. Any entity that can force a vote with only 30% support is not in a weak legal position (I may be wrong on the 30%, that's what it was last time I went through this, I haven't yet looked up what the number is today).

The problem is lack of support from the public, and miscalculation on the part of some of the larger union heads. Forcing through legislation that is unpopular is the worst possible thing that can happen right now, IMHO. Unions need to do a much better job of explaining to the public why collective bargaining is important, and why it is not socialist.

You know your shit about unions buddy ......

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A guy who has 1000 stores can threaten to close one, but how many times does that scenario arise? Why would a union try to organize one and leave the other 999 alone?

Employees at single stores of massive chains try to organize all the time. In fact, even employees within individual departments of single stores.

Here's an example:

Wal-Mart (WMT Quote - Cramer on WMT - Stock Picks), the world's largest retailer and the largest private employer in the U.S., dodged organized labor again Friday, as workers at a store in Colorado voted against unionizing.

A group of workers from the Tire & Lube Express department at Wal-Mart's Loveland, Co., location voted 17-1 against union representation Friday. A vote means the company will remain union-free. Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million U.S. workers.

Now - doesn't it seem a little fishy to you that they voted 17-1 against unionization when you need 30% to get the vote in the first place? That means at least 5 employees changed their vote from the card check to the secret ballot.

Not surprising, considering Wal Mart was doing everything it could to stop it from happening:

Wal-Mart originally opposed the legitimacy of holding the vote, claiming the workers represent only one department within a store of 480 employees, so they are not eligible for union status. However, B. Allan Benson, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in Denver, recently agreed with the claim of some of the workers that they represent a separate unit as specialized workers in a distinct area.

And while the smaller chain may not be able to afford to close a single location out of spite, larger chains can:

Two weeks ago, Wal-Mart announced the closing of the Canadian store that had become the first of its stores to successfully unionize completely

Union Bid Fails at Wal-Mart | Nat Worden | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com

 

[michiganFats]

Spiderman, I just want to say that for the most part I agree with you. Some people have come in here trying to portray themselves as union guys, and they aren't. It's obvious to me that you really do know your stuff.

With the Wal-Mart example, yeah, I've heard horror stories about them. It's not uncommon for vote tallies to change, but 17-1 does sound kinda fishy to me. But, what can you do if no one there will speak out? I also would be willing to bet that other departments and stores were being lined up for organization, but again how do we know that if they won't talk?

I think that Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what I'm talking about with unions. If those workers for the most part don't want to even consider organizing, then unions need to ask themselves "why not"? The reputation has gotten so bad that Wal-Mart wage slaves won't even consider it as an option, and that's pretty bad.

 

[DiveCon]

A guy who has 1000 stores can threaten to close one, but how many times does that scenario arise? Why would a union try to organize one and leave the other 999 alone?

Employees at single stores of massive chains try to organize all the time. In fact, even employees within individual departments of single stores.

Here's an example:

Wal-Mart (WMT Quote - Cramer on WMT - Stock Picks), the world's largest retailer and the largest private employer in the U.S., dodged organized labor again Friday, as workers at a store in Colorado voted against unionizing.

A group of workers from the Tire & Lube Express department at Wal-Mart's Loveland, Co., location voted 17-1 against union representation Friday. A vote means the company will remain union-free. Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million U.S. workers.

Now - doesn't it seem a little fishy to you that they voted 17-1 against unionization when you need 30% to get the vote in the first place? That means at least 5 employees changed their vote from the card check to the secret ballot.

Not surprising, considering Wal Mart was doing everything it could to stop it from happening:

Wal-Mart originally opposed the legitimacy of holding the vote, claiming the workers represent only one department within a store of 480 employees, so they are not eligible for union status. However, B. Allan Benson, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board in Denver, recently agreed with the claim of some of the workers that they represent a separate unit as specialized workers in a distinct area.

And while the smaller chain may not be able to afford to close a single location out of spite, larger chains can:

Two weeks ago, Wal-Mart announced the closing of the Canadian store that had become the first of its stores to successfully unionize completely

Union Bid Fails at Wal-Mart | Nat Worden | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com

what that tells me is that 5 of the guys that signed the card did so either because they were intimidated into it, or they just wanted to have the vote

 

[Missourian]

When you look in the mirror, the words ****less wonder have to appear. I'll play your pansy neg rep game as long as you want....

He gave me some Neg-Rep too.

Some folks just aren't into the free flow of opposing opinions.

I gave you some Pos-Rep to make up for his neg.

 

[user_name_guest]

rayboyusmc needs friends. Anybody? He doesn't smell if you are wearing a gas mask. Plus you get to venture into his little bubble. Maybe you can grow a nut with him. He would have made a perfect follower of Charles Manson. After all, we don't know what's buried around rayboyusmc home beside the ritual sacrifice of his GI Joe toys.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what that tells me is that 5 of the guys that signed the card did so either because they were intimidated into it, or they just wanted to have the vote

a) where's the evidence that a crime was committed?

b) you don't sign a card check if you don't want a union