It's about time the US had some 'union tyranny'

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

And - how does giving the union control of balloting change any of this?

your facts are wrong...

Quote

EFCA does not eliminate the secret ballot. The entire NLRB process is left in place, still available if workers choose to use it. EFCA simply restores the original intent of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The card-check method was authorized in that law--but, over the years, corporate interests were able to kill it by chiseling into NLRB rules a provision that management can veto the use of card checks. EFCA eliminates that corporate veto, thus expanding the democratic possibilities of working folks.

Of course, secret balloting has a natural appeal, since it is how we elect people to public office. But this is notan election of public officials. It's a group of people deciding whether to form an organization, which is commonly done by a mere show of hands (from those forming a neighborhood association to those forming a local chamber of commerce).

Again, it is their union we're talking about, not management's. A union is an employee organization, and sanctimonious management honchos like Marcus should have no say over the way employees organize themselves. If management is feeling any genuine democratic impulse, how about applying it to their own organizations? After all, corporate managers have become entrenched despots, effectively shutting out the people who actually own the company (shareholders) from their rightful role in decision-making--including, for one fat example, decisions over the outlandish salaries, bonuses, and perks that top managers award to themselves.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131456/americans_are_rearing_for_a_fight_with_corporate_power/?page=entire

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[wmw999 2,452]

Simple question -- why do the unions want to get rid of the default of a secret ballot?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Simple question -- why do the unions want to get rid of the default of a secret ballot?

Wendy W.

the way i read it a secret ballot is not the default and unions do not want to 'get rid of it'

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Simple question -- why do the unions want to get rid of the default of a secret ballot?

Wendy W.

the way i read it a secret ballot is not the default and unions do not want to 'get rid of it'

"The way I read it"

LOL.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

EFCA does not eliminate the secret ballot.

Nor does locking a person up for life eliminate the possibility of that person being a menace to society. The possibilities are still there.

Look - union elections are more complicated than you are laying out. In theory the secret ballot still exists. Much like in theory, there is a parallel universe where McCain is president. A nice thought, but it doesn't mean jack shit.

Here's an example of a ballot card:
http://www.ufcw324.org/organizing/324authcard.html

These are the votes. Do you think that these could be falsified?

Another point - does the "secret vote" even exist? The card I gave you is actually from the union I was a part of - even the same Stanton office. See, a person who wants to unionize goes to the union and gets a bunch of cards. Once these are filled out and signed by, I believe, 30% of the work force, then there can be an election to form a union. The employer can either recognize it or call for a secret ballot election.

The change in the law? So long as the union has 50% of the work force's cards saying they want unions, then the union is automatic.

Those consultants and other things that you mentioned usually are in the lead-up to an election. the unions can only lobby outside of work. And I'd be willing to guess that employer intimidation outweighs union strong-arming.

Note - the corporations don't "veto" it. The corporations call for an election.

Quote

EFCA eliminates that corporate veto, thus expanding the democratic possibilities of working folks.

Or, on the other end, the act eliminates the receipt of information from and even lobbying by employers. The Act would have the effect of allowing a union to troll for members, more and more, employers don't even have to know, and it keeps going and going and the information comes from ne side and then there will be a union when 50% come in. No election. No, "Hey, boss, what do you think of this?"

That's democracy of the Bush variety.

Quote

it is their union we're talking about, not management's.

It is the management's place of business. And, once the 50% is reached, it becomes the union of all of those other 50% who never voted. Gee - that's nice. It's my union now, even if I don't want to be a part of it.

Quote

A union is an employee organization,

Yes. Paid for by employees. Paid for by employers. And run for the benefit of unions.

Quote

and sanctimonious management honchos like Marcus should have no say over the way employees organize themselves.

Sanctimonious. "Practicing hypocrisy." Like there to empower workers, while stripping any vestige of choice from them.

Quote

corporate managers have become entrenched despots

Like unions.

Quote

effectively shutting out the people who actually own the company (shareholders) from their rightful role in decision-making

This is as bullshit of a comment as I have read. Shareholders get money stake. They elect a board. The board appoints officers. There are terms for shareholders who make decisions about the company - "general partnership" and "dba." And "LLC."

Quote

decisions over the outlandish salaries, bonuses, and perks that top managers award to themselves.

In 2006, the Plumbers' Union sacked its General President and Secretary Treasurer for fucking up in investing the pension fund. They got $1.3 million and $900k, respectively.

Here's something about being an owner of stock in a company. I can SELL IT! You know, opt-out of the ownership.

If I say, "I don't want to pay union dues, and I'll take a buck an hour pay drop to ensure that" I have no such choce, do I? If I say, "I don't want to be in a union" then I'm screwed. I have no choice but to quit my job and hopefully find a non-union shop.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Simple question -- why do the unions want to get rid of the default of a secret ballot?

Wendy W.

the way i read it a secret ballot is not the default and unions do not want to 'get rid of it'

The secret ballot is available if the employees ask for the vote after the ballots have been turned in.

It becomes a relic, because if the cards are turned in showing over 50% of the workforce, then the "vote" becomes useless. Only the employees (acting through the union now) will call for it.

So it is something left in that in practice will never, ever be used.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I agree that unions have had a large impact on the US auto industry, but also at fault is their management's reluctance to abandon their gas guzzler lines in favor of smaller more efficient models.

News:

Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

"The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient cars," said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst. "But shouldn't it be more about satisfying the needs of the American consumer?"

Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hybrid17-2009mar17,0,6682265.story

If Americans don't want tiny hybrid cars, then forcing them to make tiny hybrid cars isn't going to save their industry.

Furthermore:

"The hybrid flood marks a lasting commitment to a powertrain technology that currently represents only about 2% of U.S. vehicle sales and, by most accounts, is deeply unprofitable. Toyota said last year that it was finally making money on the Prius after nearly a decade producing it, but executives at other automakers acknowledge that they lose money on every hybrid sold."

Hybrids aren't going to save the auto industry...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If Americans don't want tiny hybrid cars, then forcing them to make tiny hybrid cars isn't going to save their industry.

Americans don't want them while gas is at $2. Come summer, we'll see at least some spike on that front.

Other than the mild price premium for the drivetrain, hybrids tend to be LX models, with a lot of options not on the base model, and the economy is the reason those aren't selling.

OTOH, it may also be that those who are willing to buy 'ugly' hybrids already got their's, and now it's time to sell more normal looking cars.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

So a majority of employees have to request a secret ballot in order to be able to made this decision without union coercion? And you think that actually removes the problem here? Wow.

here is the problem...

Quote

Political will

Across the country, there is broad support for the Employee Free Choice proposal. A Peter Hart poll released this January shows that 73% of the public supports it, including nearly half of Republicans.

The problem is that popular support must endure a gauntlet of naysayers in Washington, including 13,000 corporate lobbyists, a solid line of recalcitrant Republicans, and a contingent of weak-kneed corporate Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already declared that "this is an issue on which there will be no bipartisanship," claiming that the proposal would "Europeanize America." Oh, the horror.

This is going to be a major test for Obama, who pledged unequivocally last year that he would "get this thing done" if he won the presidency. Getting it done will require him to make a choice between working families and his corporate funders, to face down his own corporatist economic advisors, to use real presidential muscle with Congress, and--most important--to rally grassroots support to bring the people directly into the fight.

Yes, he can, but will he?

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131456/americans_are_rearing_for_a_fight_with_corporate_power/?page=entire

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Here's a proposal, and let me see whether you agree:

Would you favor a proposal that gives employees more choice? That is, here in Cali, there is a huge issue between a couple of unions. Service Employees International Unions is stamping out the "collective will" (I will use that term) of about 150k of its members.

Check out the local 1021 website's homepage:
http://www.seiu1021.org/

Take a look at this page, detailing the battles with another union. http://www.seiu1021.org/Alameda_County_Medical_Center_Workers_of_SEIU_1021_Reject_NUHW_.aspx

See, the National Union of Healthcare Workers has some significant support. More than 50% of its union members employed by Kaiser signed petition cards seeking to switch to NUHW.

Oh. Ummmm. The position of the SEIU can be paraphrased as follows: "You think we'll honor those? The request of our members to leave the union to join another one? We won't recognize it. In addition - fuck you."

The the SEIU did something else - the NLRB has a "contract bar" rule that means that employees wishing to ditch their union for another union cannot do so within three years of the most recent contract. There is but a 60 day window.

So, how does the SEIU stand on Employee Free Choice? It invoked the rule, which means that the union members are stuck, regardless of whether or not the workers want that union to represent it.

Regarding employee "free choice" the SEIU has asked that Kaiser employees not be allowed a secret ballot.

So, my question is:

Do you believe that Employee Free Choice should be extended to allowing the employees to decide which union it wants to represent them?

Do you think that these unions are really interested in the employees? Or are they interested in themselves?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Would you favor a proposal that gives employees more choice?

yes, here's one:

Quote

Majority sign-up. If a majority of employees in a workplace sign cards attesting that they choose to form a union, the NLRB must recognize this "card-check election" and certify the will of the workers. This alternative, majority-rule process is used without a problem in Canada and by some U.S. corporations, including AT&T and Kaiser Permanente. If employees prefer, they still can decide to use the current elections system--the choice is theirs, as it should be, since it is their organization.

Contract arbitration. If workers choose to unionize, their representatives and those of the corporation have three months to negotiate a first contract. If they cannot reach an agreement, a federal mediator is brought in to try resolving the differences. If no agreement is reached after 30 days of mediation, the disputed issues are submitted to binding arbitration, thus preventing endless foot-dragging.

Penalties against coercion. No more wristslaps for intimidating, firing, or otherwise pressuring employees in the process of deciding on unionization. It is illegal to use coercion, and this provision jacks up the penalties so there is a real deterrent to violations, including $20,000 fines for each incident and treble back pay for employees who've been fired, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against for unionizing activity.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Would you favor a provision that allows employees to decide which union "represents" them?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

they can already choose which union to join
(they just don't need all that corporate intimidation from those adam smith calls the 'masters')

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

And - how does giving the union control of balloting change any of this?

your facts are wrong...

Quote

EFCA does not eliminate the secret ballot. The entire NLRB process is left in place, still available if workers choose to use it. EFCA simply restores the original intent of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. The card-check method was authorized in that law--but, over the years, corporate interests were able to kill it by chiseling into NLRB rules a provision that management can veto the use of card checks. EFCA eliminates that corporate veto, thus expanding the democratic possibilities of working folks.

Of course, secret balloting has a natural appeal, since it is how we elect people to public office. But this is notan election of public officials. It's a group of people deciding whether to form an organization, which is commonly done by a mere show of hands (from those forming a neighborhood association to those forming a local chamber of commerce).

Again, it is their union we're talking about, not management's. A union is an employee organization, and sanctimonious management honchos like Marcus should have no say over the way employees organize themselves. If management is feeling any genuine democratic impulse, how about applying it to their own organizations? After all, corporate managers have become entrenched despots, effectively shutting out the people who actually own the company (shareholders) from their rightful role in decision-making--including, for one fat example, decisions over the outlandish salaries, bonuses, and perks that top managers award to themselves.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131456/americans_are_rearing_for_a_fight_with_corporate_power/?page=entire

Quote

since when did my business(or any business) become a democratic work place? I run my shop as i see fit and if the employee doesn't like the final descision they can leave. I didn't put my financial future in jepordy and spend all those hours working so an employee could run my shop as he sees fit. My business lives or dies by MY descisions not those of the employees.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

since when did my business(or any business) become a democratic work place? I run my shop as i see fit and if the employee doesn't like the final descision they can leave. I didn't put my financial future in jepordy and spend all those hours working so an employee could run my shop as he sees fit. My business lives or dies by MY descisions not those of the employees.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So a majority of employees have to request a secret ballot in order to be able to made this decision without union coercion? And you think that actually removes the problem here? Wow.

here is the problem...

Quote

Political will

Across the country, there is broad support for the Employee Free Choice proposal. A Peter Hart poll released this January shows that 73% of the public supports it, including nearly half of Republicans.

Ok, maybe you're really not getting it. Or maybe you're being just as dishonest as those who call this the "Employee Free Choice" proposal.

If a majority have to request a secret ballot over filling out a public card, that means each one of them must individually make that request. Implicit in this request is that they're voting no, so you've eliminated their private ballot.

And that is the problem.

If the union really is a good thing for the majority of workers, they should have no problem with a secret ballot by the workers to make that choice.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Hybrids aren't going to save the auto industry...

True, but neither will union-busting.
You know what would best save the US auto industry? - When Ford, GM and Chrysler start making cars that are as well-designed, well-built, service-reliable and long-lasting as those built by Honda, Toyota and Nissan. It's not like they haven't been on notice about this since the mid-'70s.

[dreamdancer 0]

both systems are democratic and either system can be chosen by the workers (depending upon the majority). what more do you want.

are you working for these guys by any chance?

Quote

Center for Union Facts. Launched in 2006 by professional smear artist and corporate lobbyist Richard Berman, CUF is presently running a multimillion-dollar, high-profile assault on unions generally and EFCA specifically. It has placed several full-page ads in the New York Times (at $150,000 a pop) that crudely caricature union leaders as thugs. Berman, who calls himself "Dr. Evil," is known as an ethically challenged spinmeister who has previously fronted political campaigns for Big Tobacco, the alcohol industry, fast-food purveyors, etc. He always refuses to disclose which corporations fund his attacks.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

they can already choose which union to join

(they just don't need all that corporate intimidation from those adam smith calls the 'masters')

I've pointed out FACT that is directly contrary to this assertion.

Are you just spewing forth? Did you bother to read my post about the union members wishing to switch unions but their union is fighting tooth and nail against their wishes?

So - should union members be allowed to switch unions? I believe your failure to answer the question I am asking indicates that you believe that unions should be free to enslave whomever they goddamned want. And union members may pay money for that privilege.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

since when did my business(or any business) become a democratic work place? I run my shop as i see fit and if the employee doesn't like the final descision they can leave. I didn't put my financial future in jepordy and spend all those hours working so an employee could run my shop as he sees fit. My business lives or dies by MY descisions not those of the employees.

so you'll harass and intimidate any of your workers who want to unionise?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

both systems are democratic and either system can be chosen by the workers (depending upon the majority). what more do you want.

Democracy works better without coercion. A public ballot in front of union heavies is about as democratic as an Iraqi election in front of Saddam's soldiers.

Any protection of privacy that relies on the majority is a failure.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

both systems are democratic and either system can be chosen by the workers (depending upon the majority). what more do you want.

Does a democracy deliberately exclude a class of persons? It's democracy - except for the buisiness owner.

Oh - he doesn't count. What little say he does have (asking for an actual balloted vote) will be eliminated. So what you propose is the furthest thing from "democratic."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

both systems are democratic and either system can be chosen by the workers (depending upon the majority). what more do you want.

Does a democracy deliberately exclude a class of persons? It's democracy - except for the buisiness owner.

Oh - he doesn't count.

Why would he? The point of the union is to represent the workers in dealing with the owner. So no, he doesn't count.

The problem with this silly proposal is that it will be used to intimidate those opposed to unionizing to keep quiet for fear their car will be vandalized, or their kneecaps broken.

[dreamdancer 0]

or is it these guys you're getting your disinformation from?

Quote

Alliance for Worker Freedom. This is an arm of another right-wing group, Americans for Tax Reform. Both were founded by Republican operative Grover Norquist. AWF exists to rally the far-right political network to oppose EFCA. Norquist is not given to much subtlety: "We're going to crush labor as a political entity," he boasts. He will not name the companies financing AWF.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

I get my information from a variety of sources.

I actually got some information I posted from the union webpages (for example, my information about the war by a union against members who want to switch to another union).

I get my sources from other things, such as the code of federal regulations, the US Code, and from reported court cases and administrative cases. I also utilize articles and reports.

I don't simply post another person's thoughts. Fro example, google "Employee Free Choice proposal" as taken from your post and, by golly by gee, it matches word for word with exactly one hit on google!

[url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22employee+free+choice+proposal%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=***
Why, there is som in depth research and independent thought!

See, as opposed to cutting and pasting from some union shills, claiming "broad support" and generally thick in subjective and argumentative adjectives to describe the misnathrope of the other side and similarly flowing adjectives about the virtue and altruism of unions, I tend to view ALL sources.

Why, I even lik to explain such things as "secret balloting" and have even agreed that intimidation by employers exceeds that of unions.

Because I prefer to see the whole picture and not take subjective rantings from a blog to be an accurate reflection of objective reality.

The unions have their side.
Business owners have their side.

In between those versions will there be the truth.

I've been a member of a union before. For that privilege I made a nickel over minimum wage and paid about a dime per hour to the union. Thanks, union, for enriching yourself at my expense.

I've been a business owner, too. I've summarily discharged an employee whom I learned had been using a company credit card for personal expenses. It's a good thing for her there was no union. Had the union made a stink I would have reported her to the DA's office. Then I would have reported the union for tactics against a crime victim to intimidate.

So if I seem to fall on the side of businesses versus unions, the union has only itself to blame. It was the union that fucked me. They were employees who fucked me. Tis is the same UFCW that decided to strike because it thought bag boys and checkers could not be easily replaced and wanted more benefits.

See - I had NO CHOICE but to join that union if I wanted to work there. I would have gladly taken minimum wage to not be in the union - and I would have made more money.

It was then I concluded the union is out for itself - scrape some money off the top of every paycheck.

My wife is hotter than your wife.