Sometimes you hear an item on a piece of legislation and you almost can’t believe it’s true. That was my first reaction when I heard that labor unions were proposing, and Democrats were almost universally voting for, legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot. Unfortunately, it’s true. HR 800 passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate where it probably faces a filibuster. But this will give Democrats plenty of opportunity to show labor just how much they love them.
It will also give the public an opportunity to see just how much Democrats disdain democracy. Is there another way to put it? Take all the arguments for the bill and they fall in the face of one. A secret ballot is a fair way of deciding issues in American society. In an Orwellian twist, the bill is called the “Employee Free Choice Act.”
Currently, if union workers collect signatures of 30% of a workforce stating that they want to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board conducts a secret election of all workers to decide whether a union is certified.
The new law would allow union workers to collect 50% and avoid the election altogether. Of course, eliminating the secrecy of the decision leads to incredible pressure on workers from both sides. In fact, Illinois law already recognizes the potential for undue influence by both unions and employers by preventing either of those people from providing assistance to an employee at the polling place.
Apparently, labor unions feel that their efforts to unionize companies are receiving too much resistance from the companies. You know, kind of like elections. All across the world we’ve had leaders who have had the same reaction to the election process. They stage a coup, eliminate the elections, and stay in office for as long as they want. Maybe that Pinochet wasn't so bad after all.
I can understand why labor unions want this. What I can’t understand is how Democratic politicians can so readily buy into this. Is there anyone involved in unions out there who can actually justify this bill? Anyone who can tell me why it is more fair to deny secrecy to workers?
I’m reminded of PJ O’Rourke’s book Give War A Chance. He relates how shocked the media were when the Sandanistas were kicked out of office in the first elections in Nicaragua. Geez, the media polling said that the Sandinistas would win. As O’Rourke put it, when you’re asked by a stranger whether you’re going to vote for the Sandinistas (who control every facet of your life and have been murdering your friends and neighbors) or for the other guys, guess who you’re going to say?
First of all, the collection of signatures is not something new. As you point out, signatures must be collected in order to trigger an election. So these signatures are already on file under the current system.
Secondly, if you have these signatures from over 50% of the employees, why do we need the expense and wasted time (and longer opportunity for employers to fire the employees on the list for whatever reason) of an election when the majority has already spoken? Verify the signatures, certainly. But what is the point of a "secret ballot" when over 50% of the employees have already publicly identified themselves and their clearly expressed intention to form a bargaining unit?
Last time I checked, 50% is still a majority.
We have secret ballots to eliminate undue coercion. That is the point. When you eliminate the secret ballot you allow people to influence elections in less savory ways. People can be bought off. They can be threatened. The expense of conducting an election shouldn't be a consideration as to whether it is held. The rights of people to freely associate should be. Do you really believe that every person who signs one of these petitions is in favor of the union and that no one signs because of peer pressure?
As to firing employees during an organizing period, I think that there are laws that regulate that.
If someone doesn't sign the petition, they are likely to get their personal property vandalized or dead animals thrown into the back of their truck. Try hiring a non-union contractor. There will be a giant rat put up in front of your business and anyone who crosses will be harassed.
Are you people out of your minds? Do you remember the hotels that were just put up in Champaign without union labor? As I remember it, the best the union folks could do is stage a couple of ignored protests. No one turned up floating face down in the boneyard, no kneecaps were broken.
This post is so biased, so sloppy, and so "Goodfellas"-fantasy-land that one hardly knows where to start. Coercion? People being bought off? What's next? Brando on the docks refusing to back down? Yeesh.
That this kind of sloppy work come from our County Clerk is beyond infuriating, it is embarassing. Mr. Shelden, I suggest you do one of two things: either file some complaints with the Police about these union bosses who are strong-arming workers here in Champaign County, or talk to some union workers. You might just learn something about how things work these days. Surprisingly, it is the corporations who are fighting organized workers tooth-and-nail. Could this legislation have anything to do with the fact that even though 50% of workers sign petitions, the businesses will not allow them to hold elections, thereby refusing to let them organize?
Naw, of course not. It must be Jimmy Hoffa back from the dead, and ready to fit some Mexican framers with concrete shoes.
As to firing employees during an organizing period, I think that there are laws that regulate that.
Yes, and there are no laws to regulate the intimidation and bribing of workers by unions, right? In my experience, employer intimidation has been a much more chronic problem compromising workplace democracy. Since employers already have a wealth of power in the workplace, often these tactics are more covert, but at least as damaging.
Mark, this initiative has been in effect for several years in Illinois. The Sun has not crashed into the Sears Tower.
There is nothing stopping workers from influencing each other to not sign cards. In most cases, there have been anti-union contigents of workers working against the campaign. Where it gets problematic is when you consider that companies are employing lawyers, and anti-union consultant firms to fight union organization. Sure, there are field organizers who get paid by the union, but take a moment and compare the amount of money (state, taxpayer money) that has been poured into the anti-union, anti-democratic campaigns against GEO and AAP versus the amount invested in the organizing campaigns. Because of this economic disparity, the requirement of an election could be the barrier that allows the company to prevent employee choice.
If an employer is ideologically opposed unions, the best tool against union organization is still fair, dignified treatment of all employees. There should be no need for an employer to hire giant PR firms if they wish to dissauge workers from organizing.
I'm the one who said that, not the County Clerk. I do remember seeing the rat. You didn't notice?
"Could this legislation have anything to do with the fact that even though 50% of workers sign petitions, the businesses will not allow them to hold elections, thereby refusing to let them organize?"
Wouldn't that be a blatant violation of NLRA? Why haven't the organizing unions filed complaints?
A secret ballot is the only way to ensure that neither side, labor or management, is able to unduly influence the question as to whether there is a union. Of course there are plenty of examples of management hiring firms to stop the union, etc. It's free speech. All sides have it. All sides have the right to associate freely. And employees are free to tell either side how they feel, and then cast a secret ballot that reflects what they actually think instead of what they want someone else to think they think. (got that?)
Are you defenders of this law also in favor of allowing union officials to "help" their membership cast ballots in the General Election for public officials? That way they wouldn't have to be influenced by all those advertisements out there. One of the interesting things about our election laws is that it's actually illegal to bring someone into the booth with you unless you need the assistance. Because the law recognizes that even though people say one thing about an election, it is important to have secrecy surrounding the ballot to prevent coercion and undue influence.
Actually, I don't think it does. But perhaps someone can enlighten us. I thought once the 30% threshhold was reached that an election was conducted.
Xian, could you or someone else point me to where this is in effect in Illinois. I can't find anything in the statutes or on the Illinois Department of Labor website.
An election can be held at any point after the 30% threshold is reached, but typically most unions wait until they have 70-80% of the workforce signed on the authorization cards before filing a petition with the regional office of the NLRB for scheduling an election. The company cannot stop the election from occurring and has no control over whether or not a petition is filed, but it can be delayed if there are aguments about what comprises the proposed bargaining unit (in some cases certain segments of the workforce can be exlcuded from the bargaining unit for a multitude of reasons ranging from exclusion based on supervisory status to physical proximity of a group of employees being too far away from the main worksite.). After filing the Union can request an Excelsior list which gives the physical address of each active employee and allows them to reach employees outside of work. Then there is a 60 day window before the election is held, and on election day the winner is decided by the majority of ballots cast (note, this doesn't count all the workers, only those who choose to vote). If there is any conduct viewed as having a chilling effect on the election a ULP (unfair labor practice) can be filed and the NLRB could force the employer to recognize the union even if they lost the election if it is established that the ULP was egregious in nature.
Dear Mr. Hoffa,
All your incredulity aside, what is the downside of secret ballots from the employee's perspective?
John
“either file some complaints with the Police about these union bosses who are strong-arming workers here in Champaign County, or talk to some union workers.”
We can pretend intimidation is not a tactic employed by unions, but why shred a simple check/balance to prevent abuse? By removing the secret vote, it further reduces the credibility of unions at a time when the union brand is struggling.
Instead of hearing “better trained”, “better quality”, etc we are FORCED to hire union labor because the Governor was paid off. That’s one thing, but if the unions had a good product/service to sell to the workers, they would not need to lobby to have the secret vote removed.
“Surprisingly, it is the corporations who are fighting organized workers tooth-and-nail.” I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist. : )
I find it ironic because I’m the one sticking up for the individual worker. I thought that was another selling point for the unions.
I can shed little light on this issue while others have done so also. I think people are talking about what is known as "Card Check" a card which employees sign and return to the union. When the union reaches over 50% of the employees in a Class. They can file to negotiate a contract with the employer. I am not an expert and the union does not just go in with out being asked or without a reasonable belief they will be successful. I know that unions have a bad rap sometimes deserved but I have never done or seen any of the things listed. Management has pressured employees by threatening or firing people who tried to organize. They can also reassign them to poor work hours or working conditions to let them know they are unhappy that they are trying to unionize jobs. My guess is that the employers that treat the employees fairly will have less to worry about. I would be worried most if I gave the CEO's or upper management a multi-million dollar bonus or huge raise while laying off some of the employees. I think "Card Check" is just an opportunity for workers to level the playing field a little.
Sorry we don’t have goons that go out and force people to vote in elections. We don’t force people to sign Full Share cards either.
"Could this legislation have anything to do with the fact that even though 50% of workers sign petitions, the businesses will not allow them to hold elections, thereby refusing to let them organize?"
I think what he (Hoffa) meant was even though 50% of employees sign off on the cards in favor of organizing, the business refuses to immediately recognize the union as the exclusive 3rd party representative of the workforce. Under current labor laws if the Employer decides and agrees with the Union agent to review the signed union authorization cards (prior to a scheduled election) and the number of signed cards is greater than 50% of the existing workforce the union is then immediately recognized without an election being held and a recognition/bargaining order is then imposed on the employer by the NLRB.
Many times a union organizer will call up the company / location manager and say they have an overwhelming majority of their current employees signed on and wanting to unionize and if the employer scoffs at this or says that they don't believe the organizer typically they then reply with an offer to allow the company to review the cards. Once that happens it's all over and this is a common tactic/trick used by organizers for a naive or unsuspecting organization. Most large companies are wise to this tactic however and is seldom occurs.
Additionally there are current laws PROTECTING people who go to a company to apply for a job and get hired that fully intend to try and organize the workforce and have no interest in really working at the place. This is called "salting" where the union employs and pays people to go get jobs at places they in turn want to try and unionize.
Yes, Kevin. And then you suddenly know who the 50% who did not vote for the union were.
By allowing the signature, then holding the election in secret, you allow people to say "Sure, I'd like to have a union election." To be nice. To get the union organizer to go away. To keep from getting knocked around.
But then the vote is in secret, so no one can coerce the vote either way.
Xian:
Yes, and there are no laws to regulate the intimidation and bribing of workers by unions, right?
The secret ballot is one of those laws. It protects both sides. If employers know who signed up for a union, it creates an unnecessary three-way tension between the employer, the union, and those who did not want one. A secret ballot eliminates at least the ability to quickly determine who is pro-union and who is not. That makes a whole bunch of difficult to enforce labor laws a lot harder to break in the first place.
Several years ago the Champaign County Board fought tooth and nail to keep the union out of the nursing home,,,the proxy was the then administrator,,,,,who spent at least $50,000 of the taxpayers money on an anti-union consultant,,,,,they got the union, which they richly deserved,,,,the admi. took the fall, for some county board members, GOP, if I remember correctly,,,,,,,I never did hear who was supposed to refund the money back into the conty treasury,,,,,or if it ever did occur.
Your all so funny.
"To keep from getting knocked around."
"tactic/trick used by organizers for a naive or unsuspecting organization"
I wonder when all this happens? I am calling my Staff rep. I missed something.
Are the rats funny also?
Hey Run,
What is the mechanism to get a union removed from an employer? Does it work the same way as forming one?
(honest question, really)
That is called a decertification election and works the same way as a certification election and if 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a petition that they no longer want to be represented by the union, the employer can withdraw recognition without an election if it wishes to do so.. For unions already in place with a negotiated contract, the NLRB’s general rule is that decertification elections can only be held near the expiration of the contract (or every three years, whichever comes first). This is called the “contract bar” rule. If you miss that window period, you will have to wait for the next one. For “new” unions which just became the exclusive bargaining representative and do not yet have a collective bargaining agreement, the general NLRB rule is that the union and employer must bargain in good faith for approximately a year before the NLRB will hold a decertification election.
This all reminds me of an old business prof, I had at Eastern 30 years ago, He was 220 pounds of pure Republican if I ever knew one, But, he was fair, he would stand up in front of the class and say "The only business that gets a union, deserves one" I do believe a union can be decertified, but I think it has to be employee motivated,,,,,,,mostly when the employees wish to change which union represents them. Of course the fashion has been for several years now, for american business to close down,,,,,go over the border, or off shore, and pay someone one dollar an hour, and we even give them tax incentives to leave us. What a sweetheart of deal.
I seem to remember a bulldozer that was released to do some damage while the Savoy Wal-Mart was being built.
Unions must understand that if their product (better trained workers and tradesmen) really is worth having, they need to compete economically and not with strong-arm tactics.
thanks for the info
Card Check was signed into law in Illinois and enacted in 2003-2004. Here's an interesting perspective that is not really from one side or the other, but just deepens knowledge:
http://www.eiaonline.com/communique.htm
2) Card Check May Not Be the Panacea Unions Want. Card check legislation is the Holy Grail of the labor movement this year, so its possible effects bear examining. The AFL-CIO is very proud of the fact that it helped elect Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2002, with the subsequent result of card check legislation for public sector workers being signed into law in 2003.
The purpose of card check is to increase unionization rates and reverse the decades-long decline in union membership in the United States. But the statistics in Illinois, one of the strongest labor states in the country, make you wonder if card check will really stop the juggernaut and turn it around.
In 2003, the final year without card check in Illinois, the state had 727,894 public sector workers, of whom 362,316 were union members (49.8%). In 2006, the unionization rate was 49.5%. In other words, of the 51,000 additional public employees hired in Illinois since card check was enacted, only 45 percent joined a union.
Interesting blog entry that addresses some of the concerns with the federal law and includes quotes from NAM.
www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/17/104157/205
Here's a challenge: for those of you convinced that this will lead to widespread intimidation and crazy unions destroying democracy among workers, please point to some evidence in the states which already have the card check legislation...
Incidentally, I'm not your father, Mark, but don't you think you look like an utter idiot when you post these hyperbolic posts and then display ignorance of the issue in your own state and community? "Card Check" has already been used successfully in Champaign-Urbana. I understand that you are not omniscient in your domain, but it'd be nice if you did a little research before going off into your knee-jerk self-righteous indignation...
Sometimes you hear an item on a piece of legislation and you almost can’t believe it’s true. That was my first reaction when I heard that labor unions were proposing, and Democrats were almost universally voting for, legislation that would eliminate the secret ballot. Unfortunately, it’s true. HR 800 passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate where it probably faces a filibuster. But this will give Democrats plenty of opportunity to show labor just how much they love them.
I think you are very good at your job and I often learn from your more level-headed posts, but then you'll post these crazy ones like this one or the Obama one.
But then the vote is in secret, so no one can coerce the vote either way.
:P
Do you mean this ironically?
This idea of coercion and "strong-armed tactics" is interesting to me. I am in the largest union in the country, the NEA, and I can count on one hand the number of teachers I know who have ever expressed anger about having to pay almost $400 a year in dues. The vast majority of us are happy to be bargaining collectively, and thankful to have our union.
I also have several friends in the Chicago suburbs who are framers, roofers, etc. They all had their eyes on union membership as soon as they started working the trade. It is not easy to get into the unions up there, but once you do you are set. Again, far from being coerced for forced to join up, these folks are eager to get in a union.
I am wondering if all the folks who are so anti-union are actual union members themselves, or are these ideas about violence coming from some experiences? Not sure about all this.
Finally, to address the last point ... there is little doubt that housing developers love to hire non-union labor. When you have to knock out 105 wood-frame, vinyl-sided houses in six months the last thing you need is to be tied down by quality concerns. This explains why the new developments 'round here are built to last around 20-30 years, and more and more folks are buying older homes because the quality is so much higher. Far from being a competition issue, this is just a cheap way for developers to make a quick buck. It doesn't matter how low the union is willing to go, these developers will still bring in the immigrants because they'll do it faster (with much lower quality).
Don't believe me? Ask someone who has bought one of these non-union homes in the last ten years. I have a few friends who made that mistake, and they have spent more time fixing the little crap than I have spent restoring our 1908 home. Go figure!
Evanston Review article on Illinois card check - available to public employees only:
Union membership 35% higher than rest of country.
Unions don't need to resort to violence when they can employ the coercive power of the state.
If you think unions are simply groups of like-minded workers banding together to get better treatment from their employer, you are quite naive. Unions get their power from the government, not the workers they claim to serve.
Mr. Teacher man, are you against allowing poor people to live in houses build by unskilled Mexicans? What's the problem with that? At least a developer can't force anyone to buy a poorly constructed home.
Regarding being eager to be in a union - of course many people are eager to be in a union. Many people are also eager to join gangs, but that doesn't mean they are good for the neighborhood.
I never said there would be "widespread" intimidation. I don't need that to know that it is a bad idea. Even if just a few people are intimidated it justifies my point. As someone who routinely expresses concerns about the rights of minorities I'd think you'd be sympathetic to that concept.
And no, I'm not going to stop writing about issues when my knowledge is lacking in some way. That's a convenient way to attempt to silence people, but for me it won't work. i'll continue to be open to being instructed by people who know more about things than me. I appreciate you letting me know about the Illinois law. I think this is a good item for discussion.
Xian, can you explain exactly how one goes about coercing votes when the ballot is secret? I'm intrigued by this.
Xian, when you say card check has already been used "successfully" what's your definition of success? You certainly can't mean that all of the employees who signed cards would have voted "yes" on a secret ballot. That's impossible to know and proposterous to believe. Your definition of success must be that the union won, which makes you just another labor hustler who doesn't care about what the majority of employees actually want.
I don't purport to understand the implications of all this, but amidst all thew red herrings and protestations, I have yet to see a comment concerning the disadvantages of a secret ballot. If there is a disadvantage, what is It?
John
From Redstate. "Megan McArdle on Card Check :
She makes a good point: democracy matters in votes to unionize because a union's right of collective bargaining is only enforceable with the approval of the state, so a vote to compel all workers to accept a union is a vote for governmental action."
RSWB:
Evanston Review article on Illinois card check - available to public employees only:
Union membership 35% higher than rest of country.
Did you read the other article? That's merely because Illinois State Union Membership was higher than the rest of the country before the law was enacted. The article I posted shows that union membership has actually dropped among new workers since the "Card Check" law was ratified.
There are also more cities named "Chicago" in Illinois than the national average. That doesn't mean however that the "card check" legislation caused this.
Mark:
I never said there would be "widespread" intimidation. I don't need that to know that it is a bad idea. Even if just a few people are intimidated it justifies my point. As someone who routinely expresses concerns about the rights of minorities I'd think you'd be sympathetic to that concept.
And no, I'm not going to stop writing about issues when my knowledge is lacking in some way. That's a convenient way to attempt to silence people, but for me it won't work. i'll continue to be open to being instructed by people who know more about things than me. I appreciate you letting me know about the Illinois law. I think this is a good item for discussion.
You are butchering the discussion. If a few people are intimidated, but the overall incidence of intimidation drops precipitously (sorry about the spelling), that would be a widespread success. Your last sentence is laughable.
Demanding knowledge on a subject is an attempt to silence people? Shouldn't we expect some level of compentence? I don't want to silence you. Read my post again. I want you to research the tiniest bit about a subject before you post these hyper-aggressive posts. You have every right to post them, but it makes you look like an idiot. That's not meant as a personal attack. It's the same way that if I lit my hair on fire and burnt my face, I would hope you would question my decision-making process.
I agree, and I would like to thank you for introducing this discussion. I would just like to see a little more even-handedness until you know something about the topic. Read your post again and imagine what it looks like to someone who knows already that most of your points are based on the fact you had no idea that the law was already being used in your county.
Xian, can you explain exactly how one goes about coercing votes when the ballot is secret? I'm intrigued by this.
1. When I voted in the Champaign County Clerk's office in 2004, the ballot was demonstrated to me as "If for example you were voting for our President, you would register your vote here..."
2. In many elections, one party, (most commonly the Republican, but certainly there have been many Democratic party operatives guilty of something similar--they should all be jail IMHO) has targeted by identity individuals and attempted to harass them into not voting or tried to have their votes thrown out. This has included posting flyers saying that anyone attempting to vote would be jailed if they had parking tickets, or saying that those with a misdemeanour conviction would be fined for trying to vote, etc.
3. In the past Chicago election, the did not send out polling place announcement to those who were typed to not support Daley until AFTER the election. I received mine on Thursday.
4. Our Aldermanic encumbent's wife stood by the booths at one precinct and loudly introduced herself as voters entered to vote.
5. When I received my ballot, I was told, "You want a paper ballot right?" and was handed one. Once again, they demonstrated how to use the ballot (line-->arrow connection ballot) by pointing to the line of "Our Mayor". When I came out, the ballot was fed into a machine by an election judge who was looking at my selections while they were fed in.
These are mostly "more friendly" cohersions. We could also look at the old "brick through window if you don't take a campaign sign" tactics.
Sure. You could argue that all of this would be worse without secret ballot. I'm of the idea though that it's better to just draw the line at zero tolerance for such tactics and have people accountable for their election choices...
Warrior:
No, my definition of success was that the law was instituted, utilized and I have heard no complaints, especially not after the union successfully prevented the University from forcing employees from taking sick leave when the University cancelled services on the last snow day.
The idea was not to esoterically debate the definition of "success", but to simply point out that the law that people are saying was so ridiculous to even consider was already in effect and being utilized in the county they work in.
"That's impossible to know and proposterous to believe. Your definition of success must be that the union won, which makes you just another labor hustler who doesn't care about what the majority of employees actually want."
Enough with the name-calling. Address the issues, please.
thanks for the update/correction Xian
I wonder though, how many public employees that could be unionized were not when this law was passed? Maybe the "card check" didn't have a dramatic effect because there were few if any possible groups to unionize? That would not be the case in the private sector.
One group I do know that unionized was the daycare workers - don't know if "card check" was involved - but these workers definately had nothing to lose/everything to gain by asking the G.A. to pay them more.
No problem. Sorry if the answer came off a little snarky. I was just trying to illustrate, but I realize I probably could have used a less abrasive example ;)
xian wrote "Shouldn't we expect some level of compentence?"
heh.
Well, Xian, since you've called me an idiot a couple times I'd like to point out that every example you gave is remedied by the secret ballot. You or any voter could have listened to the hacks, cheaters, liars, etc and stepped into the vote and voted exactly how you wanted and none of the hacks, cheaters, liars, etc would have known how you voted. Are you really telling me that you don't comprehend the difference between the two? In order to coerce one must be able to effect the final result. With secret ballots that can't be done.
I'm not sure why you think that my pointing out the rights of the minority is so laughable. But since you haven't brought up persuasive points on any of your other thoughts I won't hold my breath. As a couple have asked, what is so wrong with maintaining a secret ballot? I want to stand up for the rights of those who want a secret ballot. Who's rights are you standing up for?
I think that we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes intimidation. But regardless, even if we were both to agree on the definition we have two different ways of addressing it. What you want to do is to prevent corporations from intimidating employees by bypassing the electoral process. I want to make the initmidation fruitless by giving each and every employee a secret ballot whereby neither labor nor management knows how they vote.
Go ahead and read your post and think about how you look to the average person who believes that secret ballots are a pretty decent idea. You still have not presented one single argument that tells us why it is better for workers to have this right taken from them. By the way, now that I have been informed that this is being used in Illinois it does not change my opinion on this topic one iota. I appreciate the enlightenment. Now tell me something that matters.
If a few people are intimidated, but the overall incidence of intimidation drops precipitously (sorry about the spelling), that would be a widespread success.
Sounds like a nice defense of the Patriot Act. Welcome to the dark side.
Sure. To answer you and John's question:
I have nothing against a secret ballot in principle. I do think it's actually helpful in many cases when people are encouraged to stand up for their beliefs, but certainly a secret ballot would help prevent existing abuses.
But that doesn't mean that an unchecked secret ballot is some type of Holy Grail. The reason why I responded so aggressively is that II believe the "card check" law is an attempt to provide a MORE democratic option to the existing one rather than a less democratic one. I would wager that that's true of every single one of its proponents. That you believe the opposite is your right and I believe you that it does indeed go against democratic action, but there is no need to charge that we hate democracy in your polemic. Certainly that's not a good way to start a discussion. And I suppose my style criticism was not a constructive response.
A union election is not the same as a general election. In a general election, you cannot hold mandatory meetings to plead your case as to why Mark Shelden should be made President of the Universe. Knowing you, I don't imagine that you would want this ability. But companies do this type of thing all the time.
The only issue at stake in a union election should be whether workers believe that the body in question should represent them in collective bargaining and will continue to allow them access in such process.
The most effective way to measure this is a card-drive. I have never experienced a card drive where people were coerced to sign cards. Quite the opposite--in my experience, people would gauge interest, hand a card over and then just leave it at that.
The names were never used to harass people after the fact for not signing.
If you would like some reforms to make it a more secret process, I would probably support some of them. For example, you could require two boxes on each card. "Yes" or "No". You could perforate the card so that employee information was separate from the card, but there was a matching ID# which the Labor Relations Board could use to ensure that no fraud was taking place. At the end, you could count "Yes" and "No" votes.
But the idea that the only way to conduct a free election is to set it up in such a way that the side with more money and leverage over workers can affect the outcome seems awfully undemocratic to me. The union is not supposed to represent the interests of the company. It is supposed to support the interests of the company by being a organ that looks out for the best interests of the workers, and a fairly treated, happy worker is a productive worker. Perhaps if companies and say, universities would spend a little more energy and money on listening to worker concerns and less on trying to deny worker voice, everyone would be better off.
I believe that the most effective way is a secret ballot. I don't understand how that couldbe contested. It is the only way in which we can be relatively certain that people are voting their beliefs without fear.
And I suppose you can call it hyperbole when I suggest that people who support this are undemocratic. But I truly believe that this is an antidemocratic method of deciding these things. Just as it would be undemocratic for me to collect the signatures of half of the county's registered voters and decide that we didn't have to bother witha County Clerk's election. Just as I think it would be undemocratic for Wal-Mart to have "voting parties" where their employees brought their absentee ballots in to work and got together to receive "help" in filling them out.
"All those in favor of George Bush step to that side of the room and Bob will fill in your ballot for you."
I've had this conversation many times in the past and found many people completely lacking in understanding about it. I had members of the media tell me that there shouldn't be any concern about ballot secrecy being compromised within a family because every spouse knows how their spouse is voting.
People who are passionately involved in issues sometimes find it difficult to believe that everyone else doesn't wear their feelings and opinions on their sleeves. You think nothing of telling others how you feel about an issue, as do I. But many others don't want to tell others, and when in engaged in conversations will tell people what they want to hear instead of what they truly believe. There's nothing wrong with that. That's their right. And the secret ballot is the only way for them to exercise that right.
It seems like Congress could put an end to that abuse and still preserve the rights of workers to a secret ballot.
I agree with Run. I think the biggest problem with this thread is that the folks who are busy pontificating against the unions are not, in fact, members of union. Maybe it's jealousy, maybe it's a profound ignorance of Labor History, but fighting against measures that make the unionization of workers easier is coming off as elitist, and downright yucky.
so teacherman, for how many decades have unions been able to survive without this provision, but now it's necessary? and elitist to ask for the unions to abide by the same rules that were in place from 1993-1995 when democrats controlled the white house and the congress? and teacherman, it's not about making the unionization of workers easier. That's putting this in the perspective of the unions. The question is about the rights of workers to organize. It's about the workers after all, not the union.
we're still waiting for one person to tell us why it's necessary to take away the rights of workers to a secret ballot in the decision to unionize. You want to make it easier. i understand. i want worker's rights.
Also, we don't generally make laws to protect the rights of people against contemporary abuses. Most laws protecting rights are to protect against possible abuses. In 1783 there were very few people that were concerned that the Congress would start to quarter soldiers or establish a state religion. The bill of rights was passed to protect against those intrusions in the future.
It's the same with this. Most of you labor supporters don't see this as a problem because you're looking at it contemporarily. If you look at what could happen in the future then you would understand more of the concerns of those who think this is a bad idea.
Another qustion. Can one person out there give an example of a Union that was unable to be formed under the current law even when it had more than half the workers in support of it? An earlier person claimed that this had happened but failed to tell us when or where.
we're still waiting for one person to tell us why it's necessary to take away the rights of workers to a secret ballot in the decision to unionize. You want to make it easier. i understand. i want worker's rights
I spent about a half-hour explaining this earlier. You said, well, there's gotta be ways to do this without taking away secret ballot. I explained several ways, you ignored that. There's gotta be a way to get people to discourage people from killing each other without catching them and throwing them in prison, but in the meantime, it's the best response we have.
Xian, what I read from your posts is that your concerned about the tactics of companies who try to influence union elections. I guess i don't see that as a problem. Efforts to organize or dissuade the organization of a union should get no more free speech restrictions than any other organizational effort in our country. If the exercise by corporations of their free speech rights is all that concerns union organizers i consider that a poor argument.
I'm not targeting you in particular with this comment, and it really could be directed at both parties. There are large numbers of people who believe that ballots don't reflect the will of the people because someone spent more money, or lied, or any of a number of reasons. Certainly, there are times that it can be true. But the first thing someone should look at when they lose an election is whether the people actually wanted something different that what you wanted.
The county board map is gerrymandered to prevent republicans from winning easily. But the most distressing thing to me about this last election is that people didn't care about the problems that I cared about. Perhaps a few people could look at the failures of unions and decide whether the unions are at an electoral disadvantage, or whether they just aren't offering something that the average worker wants.
As to your one idea, it seemed like an election. i was a little confused as to how it differed from what i would want and how it would in any way comport with what labor wants.
I'm not sure where to begin, or whether it's even worth it. It's obvious from this thread that many here are living in a universe far removed from the realities of union organizing.
Let me start by saying that a recognition campaign is unlike any other type of election. This isn't like a nominating petition or election for public office, or a simple opinion poll. You can't be fired or harassed into quitting for signing a nominating petition for public office. You can be fired for union organizing, and it happens all the time.
Those of you who say "but aren't there laws against that" are correct, but unfortunately these laws are almost never enforced, and when they are, it is often years after the events in question, after everyone has already moved on. The NLRB moves notoriously slowly, when it moves at all. This affords little real protection for workers who are trying to feed and clothe their families in real time, and are often just a couple paychecks away from losing their house.
That, in fact, is one of the biggest problems with the secret ballot. The NLRB moves slowly to begin with, and there are any number of legal tactics that businesses can use to delay the process even further. This provides employers with a window that is sometimes years in length in which to eliminate or harass the employees who have taken the lead in organizing. The other employees see this, and the effect is chilling in the extreme.
Many of you talk as though employees only sign these cards out of cowardice, for fear of alienation from their fellow employees. Much of the time, it is exactly the opposite. It is an act of incredible courage, undertaken at great risk to one's livelihood and the well being of one's family.
This is not something which employees do lightly, like an oral pop quiz. And the cards don't merely say "I agree to have an election (so everyone will quit bugging me)." What they say is "I want this union to represent me in a bargaining unit." It is a written commitment. Once the cards are signed, they have the potential to become a form of public record. If ultimately submitted by a union for recognition, they become legal documents. They are a clear and unequivocal, formal, legal, written indication of support for recognition of the bargaining unit.
And yet, the employers are still able to thwart that intention. Over fifty percent of the employees at the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District signed AFSCME cards in 2003. Because of the legal manuverings of the District (and a huge procedural error by the Illinois LRB), they still have not held an election, as far as I know.
We don't live in a perfect world, and this proposed procedure probably isn't perfect either. But union members universally see it as fundamentally tied to their very right to organize and exist.
Nicely written Kevin.
I agree with Run4cvrlib,,,,,,,that was very well written.
so teacherman, for how many decades have unions been able to survive without this provision, but now it's necessary?
It's necessary because the last 25 years of federal government "labor reform" have resulted in dwindling union membership, a shrinking middle class, a major health care crisis, disappearing pensions, stupefying corporate corruption levels, soaring bankruptcy rates ... etc. etc. etc.
Try to remember that unions are good for workers. Again, find a union worker and ask her if she wishes she could be de-unionized. Again, I have known hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers over the years and I literally know two people who have ever even complained about our dues.
The reason I think you are coming off as elitist is because you seem to be carrying water for the US Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups. These folks are constantly pushing their influence ($) to get our bedrock labor laws repealed or watered down, so management can make a couple of extra points on the stock share.
Anything that makes union organizing easier is going to be a good thing for workers. If an employer can fire employees who advocate for a union, force workers to sit through "seminars" on why union membership is a negative, and postpone secret ballots indefinitely, then the playing field has tilted too far to management's side. A measure like this brings that field a little closer to level, that's all.
"This isn't like a nominating petition or election for public office, or a simple opinion poll. You can't be fired or harassed into quitting for signing a nominating petition for public office. You can be fired for union organizing, and it happens all the time."
Isn't the best way for someone to support union organizing without fear of repercussion the secret ballot? Then the management doesn't know how you stand, you can pretend to side with management to protect your job, and you can vote your conscience. Isn't that the whole point of the secret ballot?
Am I missing something here?
"The reason I think you are coming off as elitist is because you seem to be carrying water for the US Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups. These folks are constantly pushing their influence ($) to get our bedrock labor laws repealed or watered down, so management can make a couple of extra points on the stock share."
It just seems Ford, GM, airlines, government and schools have been less impacted by the pro-business groups and are heavy union. Coincidentally they all have bad "management". Maybe somone can shed some examples of successful union organizations? It is only beneficial for my union friends to start talking about some victories and accomplishments. I'm not being saracastic. I have friends who work hard and are members of unions and deserve a better public image that what they get. If unions cannot cite (or focus the message on) accomplishments and take credit for any victories, is their dwindling membership really is the fault of labor reform? That question should be irrelevent as we see the postive examples listed....
OK, now I am feeling really stupid. Normally, on a thread about a subject, let's hypothetically say "Proposed elimination of the secret ballot in union elections," and someone says, "What are the disadvantages of a secret ballot?" and then someone else says, "I will answer your question," one would expect a sentence beginning something like "Secret ballots cause this or that problem" or "Secret ballots are bad because..."
Maybe I missed that sentence up there. Perhaps Gordy has a utility that will highlight something like that in red so union ignoramuses like me can follow the discussion.
John
"Try to remember that unions are good for workers. Again, find a union worker and ask her if she wishes she could be de-unionized. Again, I have known hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers over the years and I literally know two people who have ever even complained about our dues."
Could that be because schools don't have to compete in the marketplace? Unions are good for workers if the workers still have jobs. Unions aren't much good for workers when they price themselves out of a job. I can't help but recall the strike over at the Firestone plant in Decatur, right when the Explorer tire problems were going on. Now the plant is closed. Was the union good for those workers?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010861.php
Thanks for the article, anon. But it seems to me that unions would be in favor of the secret ballot, as it would be easier for workers to votes "Yes" without anyone knowing they did so.
What am I missing? The secret ballot seems to be protecting those who most need it - the workers themselves.
"What are the disadvantages of a secret ballot?" I guess we are trying to tell you that people have to have an opportunity to get to the "Secret Ballot". Business mostly large business has had such a race to the bottom when it comes too how it treats it's employees and what is fair it really does not seem to care sometimes about the rules.
While I know full well the many mistakes of unions and they are have created some of their own problems. I think it should be up to the employees themselves to decide if they want to have a union. If they want to sign a card fine if enough employees at a company sign the card then they have a union. I don't hear complaints when managers negotiate for higher wages and benefits. Why can't rank and file employees do the same or is it that we cut into your pay and you don’t like it?
"I guess we are trying to tell you that people have to have an opportunity to get to the "Secret Ballot". Business mostly large business has had such a race to the bottom when it comes too how it treats it's employees and what is fair it really does not seem to care sometimes about the rules."
I guess I don't really care how the "card" process works as long as the results will be ratified by a secret ballot election, supervised by the NLRB, to protect the workers to on both sides from repercussions from either management or the union.
Isn't that the process we have now?
What are the benefits, to the workers, of getting rid of the secret ballot election? Why not let them vote their conscience, free of pressure from anyone? If the union has already locked up 50%-plus support in an aboveboard "Card" process, then the union is going to win a secret ballot election anyway. So why the push to get rid of it?
I guess I just don't see the benefits, to the workers, of eliminating the secret ballot election. Again, what am I missing?
It doesn't make sense to eliminate the personal rights of someone on the basis that the NLRB runs like a goverment-managed entity. I'm afraid this only hurts your cause. Your cause is a respectable one, but it is painful to watch the union shoot themselves in the foot over and over. The argument to take away a secret vote has taken the situation a new low. Nobody can blame labor reforms for this public relations blunder.
That's your opinion of the facts they really are not "personal rights" if the employer doesn't follow the rules and give them the opportunity to have that vote.
"I can understand why labor unions want this. What I can’t understand is how Democratic politicians can so readily buy into this."
I guess as others have said and I will repeat we don't see Card Check as a slam-dunk. Maybe the democrats who run this state so solidly and the democrats that took over US congress understand that there is a problem with the way business treat their employees. Those employees apparently are voting democrat not republican like us.
If the argument is that the election doesn't follow the card-check in a timely enough fashion, why not push for legislation to streamline that process, rather than eliminate the election entirely? To me, eliminating the election entirely sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Again, to me, a secret ballot provides the best protection for individual workers, allowing them to express their true opinion without fear of repercussion from management or organizer. Why is that a bad thing? Am I mistaken?
Maybe I missed that sentence up there.
No offense, but I think you missed most of the thread. To make it easier on you, here goes:
#1 - If a majority of workers sign the cards, management can still force a secret ballot. Doesn't matter that a majority of workers have signed the cards, the management can still force the ballot.
#2 - The employer can use the time before the vote to pressure employees to rethink their decision to unionize. The current law prohibits union advocacy by employees during work hours and allows employers to ban organizers from the work place. But employers can require workers to attend anti-union presentations, and can discipline or fire those who refuse to attend. This happens all the time. In fact ...
#3 - In 2005, according to the most recent annual report of the National Labor Relations Board, 31,358 employees were receiving back pay after being discriminated against for their union-related activities. In research for a bipartisan Congressional commission in 2000, Kate Bronfenbrenner, a labor relations professor at Cornell University, reported that 25 percent of employers illegally fired at least one employee during organizing campaigns. (hat tip: NYTimes)
So ... the secret ballot is not actually something designed to help workers who are afraid of their co-workers. It is designed to give management the time to force employees to sit through indoctrination seminars about the evils of a union. Getting rid of the ballot makes unionizing easier, and that is a good thing for workers, imo.
"So ... the secret ballot is not actually something designed to help workers who are afraid of their co-workers. It is designed to give management the time to force employees to sit through indoctrination seminars about the evils of a union. Getting rid of the ballot makes unionizing easier, and that is a good thing for workers, imo."
If management is treating employees this way, then a secret ballot is the best protection for them. They can tell management what management wants to hear, and vote to organize in secret. Eliminating the secret ballot forces limits the options of those who favor organizing to one: sign the card, and face management pressure.
I can't imagine why anyone thinks removing the ability of workers to vote in secret is somehow going to lessen the pressure they'll feel from employers. That's illogical.
"Getting rid of the ballot makes unionizing easier"
and we all know that this is the whole reason why the bill was passed
Again, to me, a secret ballot provides the best protection for individual workers, allowing them to express their true opinion without fear of repercussion from management or organizer. Why is that a bad thing? Am I mistaken?
Gordy, I appreciate this sentiment, but I really think this is where it's simply a lack of experience of being in an organizing movement.
Without the risk in organizing to communicate, there is no union. From the first day of organizing, people must be informed with the utmost care so that employers won't break the law and attack workers attempting to organize. By the time a union tries to organize, usually its because it's a no-brainer--the vast majority of workers can see the benefit to organizing once it has been offered to them. The main opponent is fear. Fear that you will be fired, or mistreated at work.
Anyone who has ever worked for someone else knows the difference that a great/terrible boss can make. An employee shouldn't have to choose, "Should I try to support this union which will improve my life, but risk pissing off my boss who will intentional persecute me?" But that is a daily, real choice that faces a large percentage of workers in unionizing environments.
By the time the cards have been counted, the election is over. The workers have chosen to forgo their own anonymous balloting to certify a union.
This is why the far-right perspective in this thread is so bizarre. Secret balloting is still in existence and a great thing. But there shouldn't be anything that stops workers from choosing to forgo that right and gain their democratic rights.
Seriously, do the math! If you have a stack of 50% + 1 cards in favor of the union within SIX MONTHS, what percentage of the workers do you think actually oppose the union? Certainly not 49.9%. Even if unions were pouring in the resources that the companies do into their glamour anti-union law firms, they could not possibly reach every single union supporter to sign a card.
An employee shouldn't have to choose, "Should I try to support this union which will improve my life, but risk pissing off my boss who will intentional persecute me?"
Why shouldn't they have to choose? I think they should have to choose. Certainly an employer has to worry about "pissing off" his employees if he cuts their pay. He worries that the employees will persecute him by quitting and telling all their friends never to work for him or do business with him. They might even go to the media to do a sad story about the evil employer who is so greedy. Both sides, the employer and employee, need to be mindful not to piss off the other - that's what keeps wages and prices at reasonable levels.
Xian said: I think you are very good at your job and I often learn from your more level-headed posts, but then you'll post these crazy ones like this one or the Obama one.
Mark said: And no, I'm not going to stop writing about issues when my knowledge is lacking in some way. That's a convenient way to attempt to silence people,
That's exactly right Mark. The purpose of a local political blog is for ideas to be presented and others to add their insight, opinion, and expertise. Xian was ridiculously out of line to criticize Mark for not being a labor expert. Actually, it was an interesting read.
Secret ballots are the American, democratic way. Period. No matter what union spin one tries to put on it. It protects all of us. This is just bad legislation.
The "secret ballot" can't protect anyone if it never happens. And the "secret" ballot can never protect everyone because the "secret" is almost always out long before the ballot can possibly happen.
It is perhaps an easy mistake to make for those who've never been on either side of an organizing campaign, but it is definitely a little naive to think that employees can collect any significant number of signature cards without management finding out a great deal about who is circulating them and who is signing them. I guarantee you that long before you can get half (or even a third) of the employees to sign, someone (and usually several someones) has seen enough for management to know exactly who is driving the effort.
Finally, no one is saying that truly secret ballots are inherently bad in and of themselves. In fact, the Illinois law (and I assume the federal proposal) keeps the secret ballot option for those situations between the old trigger point and the fifty percent mark. The real problem, as run pointed out, is even getting that far. Asking us to prove that secret ballots are bad is misdirection, when our argument all along is only that an alternative may be significantly better in those cases where the intent of the employees is already overwhelmingly clear.
The signature cards are already an integral piece of the process. The fifty percent trigger known as "card check" simply recognizes them for what they already are, instead of mandating that employees jump through yet one more hoop to the possible benefit of an employer's efforts to kill the union.
Why shouldn't they have to choose? I think they should have to choose. Certainly an employer has to worry about "pissing off" his employees if he cuts their pay. He worries that the employees will persecute him by quitting and telling all their friends never to work for him or do business with him. They might even go to the media to do a sad story about the evil employer who is so greedy. Both sides, the employer and employee, need to be mindful not to piss off the other - that's what keeps wages and prices at reasonable levels.
Because giving a pay cut is naturally something that involves a negiotiation between worker and employer's needs. Workers getting together is not. The idea that you think that an employer is justified in angrily oppression their workers for attempting to collaborate with one another says all I need to know about your ideas of a democratic workplace.
That's exactly right Mark. The purpose of a local political blog is for ideas to be presented and others to add their insight, opinion, and expertise. Xian was ridiculously out of line to criticize Mark for not being a labor expert. Actually, it was an interesting read.
I already responded to this. How is it out of line to criticize someone for not being a labor expect when they are talking about labor? Do we really not care about expertise anymore?
I didn't say it to censor him. I just said it's sometimes worth taking five minutes to do some rudimentary research before you open your mouth in a very aggressive polemic tearing on other people.
Otherwise, you are just spewing crap and hoping that it helps you "vanquish the enemy".
But I said that exactly in a post above yours. So could you cut the masturbatory backslaps? For Mark to accuse me of trying to silence him wrongly once was a simple misunderstanding. For you to follow-up with the same accusation after I already responded means you are either calling me a liar or simply don't care to listen.
Taking away elections is democratic because a third party organization getting signatures is just as democratic. I think most people get your point. Do the math, if you have 50% signatures then it's legitimate. Not everyone is a certified expert in union organization around here. There's a lot of non-experts out there who are going to have trouble understanding this train of thought. I'm going to have trouble explaining this logic to them with a straight face. Kudos to the union organizations who can sell the idea that the elimination of elections is good thing. This is truly impressive. You have to give them that!
The only possible reason anyone in this thread disagrees with xian is: institutional racism.
"The only possible reason anyone in this thread disagrees with xian is: institutional racism."
I see. So card check is bad because xian thinks it's good. That's a clever argument.
"Taking away elections is democratic because a third party organization getting signatures is just as democratic."
1) It's not a third party organization. It's the workers themselves circulating and signing the cards, usually with the support and encouragement of union organizers who can counsel them on how to navigate the treacherous waters of workers' rights and employers' tactics.
2) It's not taking away an election. It's recognizing the validity of the de facto election that has already taken place in writing.
So yes, it is democratic.
But you know what? You're right. Secret ballots are good. And you can never have enough of a good thing. So why just have one? Let's have two or three secret ballots before we allow a bargaining unit to be recognized.
Oh, but wait. We don't need two or three secret ballots because we already know the employees' intentions from the first one. Gee. Kind of like how we can already know the workers' intention if a majority of them have already clearly expressed it in writing and signed their names to it.
If 100% of the employees had signed union cards, would you still make them wait an indefinite period before allowing them the great privilege of repeating their request in the form of a secret ballot? Or would you concede that, hey, maybe they're trying to tell us something, and in fact have already spoken en masse.
When an obvious majority of workers have formally expressed in writing their clear desire to form a bargaining unit, the only possible reason to delay immediate recognition of that bargaining unit (aside from reasonable verification of signatures and percentages) is to buy time to attempt to prevent the unit from ever being recognized at all.
Some thoughts for consideration: Disagreement is usually good, especially if its open and does not covey hatred. Secret ballots are always good as they are intended to convey a non-coerced decision. One political party is bad, two political parties can be bad or good, three or more political parties can be good or bad. And you can have too much of a good thing depending upon the definition of good.
"Seriously, do the math! If you have a stack of 50% + 1 cards in favor of the union within SIX MONTHS, what percentage of the workers do you think actually oppose the union?"
Unlike you, I think it's possible that some people who sign a card in public might actually vote differently in a secret ballot election.
But I ask again - if the union is so confident that everyone who signs a card is in favor of organizing, then why the fear of having an election?
I've said it more than once - a secret ballot election doesn't protect the union, and doesn't protect the management - it protects individual workers who may not feel comfortable expressing their opinions publicly. A secret ballot election is the only way for those workers who might feel intimidated by either side to register their true opinion in a way that counts.
Why would anyone want to do away with that, especially since the unions are so confident that they already have the votes?
If there's a problem with the amount of time it takes to get from a card-check to the election, then reform that process - don't get rid of the election itself. That's the only protection workers have from coercion from both sides.
Xian, You don't have to be an expert in labor unions to understand that having secret elections after the initial percentage is the democratic, right thing to do. I don't have to be in a union negotiation to know human nature and power.
Unions are not as popular as they once were for good reasons and this initiative will not help. Why not? Because regular joe's know inherently that secret ballots are the ultimate right they should have to protect themselves from employee pressure and union pressure. Some posters assume there will be pressure from employers but the magnanimous unions are pure and benevolent. Talk about real naivete.
I also understand that the ballot question reverses if employees want to de-unionize. THEN it's secret. The bill is written as totally one-sided, favoring the unions, not the employee or employer.
"I also understand that the ballot question reverses if employees want to de-unionize. THEN it's secret."
Huh....isn't that interesting.
UE, I'm curious, do you work for in the private or public sector?
Some posters assume there will ?
be pressure from employers but the magnanimous unions are pure and benevolent. Talk about real naivete.
Who? I disagree with them. Where are they?
I also understand that the ballot question reverses if employees want to de-unionize. THEN it's secret. The bill is written as totally one-sided, favoring the unions, not the employee or employer.
Well, that type of inconsistency helps no one.
Unlike you, I think it's possible that some people who sign a card in public might actually vote differently in a secret ballot election.
Why? Isn't it much harder to sign a card in public than it is to do so in a secret election?
The only possible reason anyone in this thread disagrees with xian is: institutional racism.
I put a lot of time and thought into this forum on issues that span the spectrum--most having nothing to do with race. But you disagree with the kid who happens to be a different ethnicity and suddenly it's clever to mock the his utterly unrelated views on racism in the society.
Disgusting.
I start a thread on empathy and Christianity two things that I love, and someone takes the opportunity to tell me than when Asian people don't have accents they are "acting Americanized" and that blackface and yellowface displays are awesome. He stops just short of calling me "slant-eyed".
Then we have this trainwreck.
Mocking someone as a whiny minority when you don't agree with their point is beyond low. I hope you find a good therapist because I don't know what I can do from the safety of the other side of a computer screen.
But you disagree with the kid who happens to be a different ethnicity and suddenly it's clever to mock the his utterly unrelated views on racism in the society.
You are a different ethnicity?
In any case, you are not a kid. You have been blaming everything on race online at least eleven years.
"if the union is so confident that everyone who signs a card is in favor of organizing, then why the fear of having an election?"
There is no fear of having an election. It's exactly the opposite: fear of never getting to the election. And fear of what happens to union activists in the meantime.
"If there's a problem with the amount of time it takes to get from a card-check to the election, then reform that process - don't get rid of the election itself."
That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and in a perfect world would be the perfect answer. Unfortunately, the reality is that the timelines in the current law are already relatively short, and it still doesn't matter. The current timelines actually strike a pretty good balance between the amount of time necessary for both sides to have a reasonable chance of presenting their respective cases and informing the prospective voters, and the need for reasonably prompt action.
No matter how streamlined or expeditious the process is made, however, employers will always have a number of legal tactics available to them that, no matter whether spurious or legitimate, will always allow for inevitable, interminable delays. And any window of time is often enough for employers who are determined to skirt the law to be able to wreak havoc on their employees.
Unions would love to have the current laws enforced properly and fairly and promptly. Unions would love to have truly secret ballots in timely, honest elections. And unions would love to be able to conduct their activities without fear of reprisals from either side. We just don't happen to live in a Walgreen's commercial.
So we do the best we can with the hands we're dealt, and constantly look for ways to make it better. In the labor world view, card check just seems like simple common sense, and those who oppose it seem (to us) to be attacking our core principle, which is the right to organize. i know that is not always the motivation of those who object to card check or don't understand it from the same perspective as we do, but you have to understand that we're a wee bit sensitive about our right to exist.
Unlike you, I think it's possible that some people who sign a card in public might actually vote differently in a secret ballot election.
Why? Isn't it much harder to sign a card in public than it is to do so in a secret election?
It depends on who your are and the particular circumstances surrounding the election. But it is certainly possible that some people feel more pressure to sign the cards at the behest of their coworkers than they do from management.
"That's a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and in a perfect world would be the perfect answer. Unfortunately, the reality is that the timelines in the current law are already relatively short, and it still doesn't matter. The current timelines actually strike a pretty good balance between the amount of time necessary for both sides to have a reasonable chance of presenting their respective cases and informing the prospective voters, and the need for reasonably prompt action.
No matter how streamlined or expeditious the process is made, however, employers will always have a number of legal tactics available to them that, no matter whether spurious or legitimate, will always allow for inevitable, interminable delays. And any window of time is often enough for employers who are determined to skirt the law to be able to wreak havoc on their employees."
It sounds like the real problems are with the process leading up to the election, not the election itself. Getting rid of the election, as I've said here earlier, seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
"So we do the best we can with the hands we're dealt, and constantly look for ways to make it better. In the labor world view, card check just seems like simple common sense, and those who oppose it seem (to us) to be attacking our core principle, which is the right to organize. i know that is not always the motivation of those who object to card check or don't understand it from the same perspective as we do, but you have to understand that we're a wee bit sensitive about our right to exist."
I have no problem with your right to exist. But doing away with the election seems to be putting the priorities of the union and the organizers ahead of individual union members who might feel pressure to take a public stance they aren't really favoring.
Rather than use Democratic majorities to eliminate the election, a fairer solution would be to expedite the process to get to the election, and increase the penalties on those employers who retaliate against organizers.
In any case, you are not a kid. You have been blaming everything on race online at least eleven years.
You must have me confused with someone else. I was not even in this country, and did not own a personal computer nor converse online 11 years ago.
I wonder if anyone agrees with this fabricator. It's an interesting phenomenon. I could make 100 posts about education or local politics or the Chicago skyline or my musical tests, but I demonstrate knowledge in a few threads about race, and that's what people choose to remember.
Oh well, I suppose lack of perspective is one of the few things to reserve pity for.
Well, if you choose to push to expedite the process, Gordy, I would gladly support you. You would be a hero of sorts, especially going against the millions of dollars worth of lawyers that companies would send against you.
But if you were successful in create a protected, not coercive environment, then sure, I would see how at that point, it might not be necessary to have a card check option in place.