Life_Long_Dem!
Member
from the Toledo Blade letters to the editor.
Judging by his Feb. 14 column, which mischaracterized the Employee Free Choice Act, Roger R. Geiger could benefit from the perspective of a nonmanagement worker who has actually been through a union-organizing campaign.
When coworkers at my long-term care facility began meeting to unionize about six years ago, our boss reacted by putting every possible obstacle in our way.
Despite Mr. Geiger's claim, most union elections bear no resemblance to political elections in a free society. How often in political elections, after all, does one candidate directly control your pay, work schedule, and employment status?
Workers' free-speech rights are regularly squelched during mandatory, one-sided presentations designed to mislead and frighten. It is patronizing for Mr. Geiger to describe these manipulative, captive-audience sessions as a "courtesy." Employers also practice various forms of economic coercion taken straight out of their union-busting consultants' playbook, including favoritism and empty threats of workplace closure. If those tactics fail, current labor law encourages anti-union employers to use drawn-out appeals so they can delay recognizing the will of their workers indefinitely.
Contrary to Mr. Geiger's claim, the Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose which way we want to unionize: either by elections or majority sign-up. Current law unfairly lets employers make that choice, instead of the workers who are directly involved.
Studies show the experiences that I've had are typical of what workers undergo during organizing attempts. We need to return fairness to the workplace and true choice to America's workers, which is why Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
Karen Kirkwood
toledoblade.com --
Judging by his Feb. 14 column, which mischaracterized the Employee Free Choice Act, Roger R. Geiger could benefit from the perspective of a nonmanagement worker who has actually been through a union-organizing campaign.
When coworkers at my long-term care facility began meeting to unionize about six years ago, our boss reacted by putting every possible obstacle in our way.
Despite Mr. Geiger's claim, most union elections bear no resemblance to political elections in a free society. How often in political elections, after all, does one candidate directly control your pay, work schedule, and employment status?
Workers' free-speech rights are regularly squelched during mandatory, one-sided presentations designed to mislead and frighten. It is patronizing for Mr. Geiger to describe these manipulative, captive-audience sessions as a "courtesy." Employers also practice various forms of economic coercion taken straight out of their union-busting consultants' playbook, including favoritism and empty threats of workplace closure. If those tactics fail, current labor law encourages anti-union employers to use drawn-out appeals so they can delay recognizing the will of their workers indefinitely.
Contrary to Mr. Geiger's claim, the Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish elections or "secret ballots." Under the proposed legislation, workers get to choose which way we want to unionize: either by elections or majority sign-up. Current law unfairly lets employers make that choice, instead of the workers who are directly involved.
Studies show the experiences that I've had are typical of what workers undergo during organizing attempts. We need to return fairness to the workplace and true choice to America's workers, which is why Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
Karen Kirkwood
toledoblade.com --
