Friday Funnies

Joan @ 11:03 pm:  Yes, it's true.  I'm an enforcer, and I have personally broken bones and hidden bodies when anyone dared to question my union bosses.  Lots of us union members are thugs or goons.  Just like lots of blacks are lazy and lots of feminists are lesbians and lots of Jews are cheap and lots of Italians are mobsters and lots of Irish and/or indians are drunks and lots of war protesters/college students/professors are pot smoking sluts and lots of Republicans are racists and lots of community activists are communists.  (And Republicans wonder why they don't always get along with unions.)  Oh, hell, nevermind.  It's time for me to go collect the weekly protection money from my neighbors...

As the friend who sent this to me said, "Amen."

"So, Kevin, do you have a problem with secret ballots for unionizing?"

No, I don't have a problem with secret ballots, not at all.  What I have a problem with is management using the promise of a secret ballot as a smoke screen to delay that vote for months or years, during which time they fire the most active employees and intimidate the hell out of the rest.

In a perfect world, and on a level playing field, I would prefer that many group decisions be made by secret ballot.  But that's not the world we live in, and the secret ballot is not a perfect panacea or necessarily the best option or even appropriate in all situations.  Otherwise all of our legislative bodies would conduct all of their business (selection of leadership, passage of laws, etc.) by secret ballot.

I don't think people always stop and think this through.  Union certifications are kind of like holding an election for local government, but one where one of the parties controls whether or not you have a job or can even live in the town or be allowed to vote.  That's not a level playing field, by any stretch of the imagination.  It would take some incredible courage to be a candidate or even campaign for the opposition party in that situation, secret ballot notwithstanding.

I wish every union certification could be decided by a fair, just, and timely secret ballot, but it doesn't always work that way in the real world.  Sometimes you just have to have a roll call.

"Wait- management controlls when workers vote whether or not to unionize?  Really?"

Yes, really.  Under the National Labor Relations Act since Taft-Hartley, management has a large number of legal measures available to them which inevitably are used to drag out the process regardless of their actual relevance or applicability.  Combine this with a National Labor Relations Board that is traditionally glacial to respond and frequently openly hostile to labor, and the delays can easily turn into years.

"Why not just seek that the law be changed to allow the workers to time the vote."

An excellent suggestion.  Labor has been trying for years to speed up the process, without any success.  It's still on the agenda.  Maybe it'll get some traction under an Obama administration.

In the meantime, we've had card check for several years now in Illinois, and the moon hasn't plunged into the ocean or the stars fallen from the skies.  There is good reason to believe that it will be passed in the relatively near future by Congress, and signed into law by the new president.

IP asks: How hard can it be to fix the process?

That would require... balls.  Here's hoping, but "messiah" and "ZOMG Pelosi" talk notwithstanding, I'm not entirely optimistic. We'll see.

That would require... balls.  Here's hoping, but "messiah" and "ZOMG Pelosi" talk notwithstanding, I'm not entirely optimistic. We'll see.

This will happen, but it will be resisted strongly by the business interests who (I am sure) cannot stand the idea of an organized work force.  Can you imagine?  What if the people at McDonald's had to provide a living wage?

I hope not.  Another small piece of individual liberty will die.

I don't understand how card check would lead to reduced individual liberty.  On the contrary, most "secret ballot" union elections in this country are horribly manipulated by management.  Capitive-audience meetings, threats to close up shop if the union is approved, promotion of anti-union employees over pro-union employees.  This is all commonplace stuff.  Seems to me much individual liberty is already dead in America when it comes to an organized work force.  Card check is a good way to revive the union movement and should (imo) be given top priority in the new WH.

"When I was a union member we had mandatory meeting attendence, threats if anyone exceed output, no promotion potential, and forced deducted union dues payment or you lost your job."

I obviously don't know where you worked, or which union it was, but at face value I have to tell you that each of your allegations seems to me to be either the result of a tragic misunderstanding or just a gross misrepresentation.

"mandatory meeting attendance" -- In almost thirty years as a member of five different internationals, I have never heard of a mandatory union meeting.  I'm not even sure how such a thing could be accomplished.  What would be the enforcement mechanism?

"threats if anyone exceed output" -- Threats of what?  The silent treatment?  Certainly not job loss.  If there were threats of physical violence, that was clearly illegal, and you had a responsibility to report them to the authorities.

"no promotion potential" -- Only management can make promotions.  These sometimes incorporate guidelines spelled out in union contracts, but I can pretty much guarantee that no contract prohibits all possibility of promotion.

"forced deducted union dues payment or you lost your job" -- Bull.  No employee has ever been fired for refusing to allow dues to be deducted from their paycheck, if only for the simple reason that no such mechanism for refusal even exists.  Besides which, unions lack the power to fire employees.

"Semantically and factually, I know there's a difference between my statement and Local Voters, but the effect is very similar:  I have to pay union dues to be an employee in the workplace, no debate possible."

First of all, thank you for acknowledging that Local Voter's statement was different from yours.  Secondly, of course dues are mandatory, in the same way that taxes are mandatory; otherwise, a lot fewer people would pay them.  It's a condition of membership, and without mandatory membership, there is no collective bargaining, and management continues to divide and conquer.

"On a side note, probably my single greatest complaint about union dues is the political (either candidates or advocacy groups) donations they fund that I am in turn personally opposed to."

That is how democratic bodies work.  The majority (or its representatives) takes a decision, and the minority abides by it or leaves.  On a side note, probably my single greatest complaint about federal taxes is the wars they fund that I am in turn personally opposed to.  I still pay my taxes, though, and I still vote as a proud citizen of the United States.

"if you disagree with what the majority of the union supports then your only recourse is to lose your job."

But of course, just as with taxes, that is not really your only recourse.  You also have the right in both cases to speak your mind, and to try to convince other like minded individuals to join you in changing the majority decision, either directly or through representatives.  In neither case, however, do you have the right to arbitrarily withhold payments which are required as a condition of membership (or citizenship).

I have also been a member of two different labor unions, the NEA (IEA, UEA) and the CWA.  I have never heard of a mandatory union meeting.

Of course, if you choose to ignore the meetings, then you hardly have a reason to complain about the direction of the union.  In my experience, there are *always* people who believe that their dues are a complete waste of their money, until negotiations come up.  Folks complain about the FairShare deductions, but when the union turns out to negotiate the new contract, suddenly everyone has an opinion and (mostly) supports the negotiators.  If there is a walk-off (strike), then everyone goes - even the staunchest conservative.

This is what makes unions such a cool part of American society - the wide variety of people who come together to work for the betterment of the workplace.

And, just as a note, the "card check" legislation would make it just as easy for a workplace to de-unionize if the majority chose to do that.  Instead of a secret ballot, which could be manipulated through union strong-arm tactics, the card check de-unionizes a workplace with a simple majority vote.  And that is extremely democratic, imo.  Of course the reality is that once a workplace is unionized very few workers want to go back to an unorganized workplace.

But that's democracy, right?  What is there to fear?

Kevin... I suppose if you're treating the employees like citizens of some sort of company/nation's gov't that makes sense.  I'm just not sure why it has to be treated as such.  If some workers want to organize and bargain collectively I can understand why they'd want democratic input over decisions made by the group, but I don't see how that democratic input is threatened by others who do not wish to be part of their group, especially if they think their views would be outnumbered and would be working against their interests/concerns.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Kevin... Yeah, this is definitely a conceptional issue.  I've never been in a union, and have learned about them mainly by friends who have been in them, some with positive experiences, others negative, and most mixed but leaning towards the positive side.  But it seems odd to me that a majority of workers could force other unwilling workers into their group.  On the worker/citizen company/government analogy, that almost sounds like a one party system for it as opposed to a democracy that values freedom of association and of course non-association.  And where union membership isn't mandatory for employment, it makes sense that the union workers would bargain collectively for a contract, whereas non-union workers would negotiate their own pay/benefits individually.  It could certainly lead to what amounts to a two tier system.  If the union guys are getting a much better deal, it'd certainly be an incentive by others to join it when weighed against their other concerns about doing so.  I don't see how that'd be a problem either... and certainly not unfair if people freely choose to join or not.

Their right to collectively bargain, imo, shouldn't be an issue, that should be a given (though I realize historically that wasn't always the case).  Not sure how not making union membership mandatory affects that as much as it would give the union some incentive to bring in new members and retain current ones through good results for the dues being paid in. 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

"And where union membership isn't mandatory for employment, it makes sense that the union workers would bargain collectively for a contract, whereas non-union workers would negotiate their own pay/benefits individually."

Except that in that instance, the union workers have nothing to bargain with, because they have no leverage whatsoever.  Management just says no to everything, because the union is completely powerless.

There is no possibility of a work action.  Management already has non-union workers on site, and simply hires more if the union employees slow down or strike.  Without a contract, the union is effectively dead, so they take whatever management offers, and collective bargaining is rendered meaningless.

Only in unity is there strength.  A house divided against itself can not stand.  Workplaces in which individuals may opt out of the union are unlikely to have an effective one.

Also, a horse divided against itself cannot stand.

Kevin... just got done chatting with one of my union pals, and she helped explain a lot of the assumptions I was making might be inapplicable.  And just as you now suggested, other scenarios and the ins and outs from the union side and their concerns.  From the union end, this all makes a great deal of sense, though from the perspective of the yahoo who doesn't want to be in the union just formed, it still seems a bit more than unfair.  I'm not sure if there's a good way to resolve that without diminishing the ability of the union to bargain, but it's given me a lot of ideas to ponder upon.  Thanks for helping me limp along with this subject.  I'm generally pro-union, with friends, family, etc who have benefited from membership moreso than feeling betrayed or scammed by it.  It's the details that have always been cloudy for me that make many of the pro/anti arguments seem a bit odd.

Definitely a subject I'd like to revisit soon.  Thanks for your patience and explanations.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I guess the last thing I would suggest is to read the history. There's often a tendency to exaggerate the ways that the unions are likely to hurt workers and assign nothing but good intentions to management. This runs opposite to the vast majority of historical evidence.

Or if you want something more recent, just check out the anti-union campaign in Columbia. Unions, like any other organization can be corrupted or co-opted. But never forget that every union is first built by the most courageous, heroic type of human being who is willing to risk their own life for the benefit of others.

I guess this is funny because of the sharp contrast with our current economy?

"I was a member of both the ILGW (at clothing factory in WI) and UAW (at car assembly plant in IL) unions."

I was also a member of ILGWU here in Illlinois from approximately 1986 until it merged with ACTWU to form UNITE in 1995, and continued as a member of UNITE until my local decertified in 2005.  I was an officer of the local nearly that entire time, and an ILGWU delegate to the founding convention of UNITE.

"If you did not pay the union dues (only payroll deduction allowed) your membership was terminated and you lost your job as both facilities where I worked were a 'closed shops'."

That's simply not how it works, at least not with payroll deductions in ILGWU.  You do not have any opportunity to refuse to pay the dues after you are hired.  They are automatically deducted, and there is no mechanism for stopping them once you accept employment.  There are in some states options to have portions refunded, but that does not result in revocation of membership.  Your description is inaccurate in its particulars, and can only be the result of either a serious misunderstanding on your part or a dreadfully inarticulate or misinformed explanation to you by someone else.

"If you did not attend a 'mandatory' union meeting or you happen to exceed output limits after an initial verbal warning you became, for example, ineligible for overtime or optional training and under certain circumstances assured your movement to one of the worst jobs in the plant.  As for promotion potential, I saw only union stewarts get promotions in either of these facilities."

Again, all of these alleged enforcement mechanisms are primarily the province of the management, and at a minimum require their agreement.  Because I don't know you personally or anyone else at the sites in question, I have no way to determine with absolute certainty whether or not you correctly understood what was actually happening or who was doing it.  Based on the quality of your participation over time here at IP, however, I certainly believe that not only was this obviously how you perceived it, but furthermore that there is probably significant basis in fact for your perceptions, since I have no reason to believe that you would make something like this up out of whole cloth.

Therefore, if this was in fact how things worked there, it sounds like there may have been seriously unethical collaboration between local union officers and the management.  I can tell you with absolute certainty that the things you describe are not policies of the international (at least at ILGWU), and some of them would have clearly violated your rights both as an employee and a union member, and should have been reported to multiple authorities.

I'm truly sorry that your experience was so negative.  There's really no excuse for it when union officers behave poorly, any more than with any other group.  There are a number of checks built into the system to avoid this type of abuse, but just like any other organization, they require that people stand up to be effective.

The fact still remains that the best protection an individual has against any and all coercion in any electoral process is the secret ballot.  That is the only way to truly allow an individual to vote their conscience.  That is the very reason why the secret ballot exists.

Getting rid of the secret ballot because the rest of the process sucks, or because the rules are too tilted towards employers, or because employers are gaming the system is sacrificing a precious individual right because of an inability or unwillingness to address ther other core problems.

IP --  Just a couple of final points and then I'm done, since it is obvious that we will probably never agree on this:

1) Card check does not completely eliminate the secret ballot.  For shops where the number of signed cards is greater than the current legal trigger point, but less than 50%, the process remains exactly the same as before, with a secret ballot determining certification.

2) These cards are not a new invention.  They are the same cards that have always been used to trigger the secret ballot, and are circulated and signed exactly the same way right now as they would be under card check.  If you are so concerned about coercion in the signing of cards, you should object in the strongest possible terms to the present system as well, and advocate an alternative, rather than support the status quo.

3) In light of #2, claiming that the secret ballot prevents coercion by acting as a check on the coerced signing of cards is actually a subtle misrepresentation, since the alleged coercion in card signing is never actually prevented, only negated long after the fact.

4) The cards are legal documents committing their signers to representation by the union.  That is why their signing by over 50% of a workforce is considered by labor to be evidence of the will of the majority.

5) The present system allows situations in which the secret ballot never even takes place, regardless of the will of the majority.  This has been the case for something like three-quarters of a century, regardless of which party is in the White House or controls Congress, and in spite of the very best efforts of a legion of very talented and passionate labor organizers and lobbyists.  To dismiss their failures as the result of an alleged "unwillingness to address" the problems is an insult to every labor activist during that period.  Punishing workers because of their very real "inability," through no fault of their own, to correct these problems is morally inexcusable.

6) This is an existential issue for labor, by which I mean that organized labor views it as a question of whether unions can even exist; i.e., it is considered to be part and parcel of the fundamental right to organize and conduct collective bargaining.  Whether one considers labor to be right or wrong in this attitude is irrelevant, since it is simply the way things are.  What that means is that the absolutist view in opposition to card check expressed by some above is inevitably and irrevocably perceived by organized labor as a whole as being inherently and inexcusably anti-union.

As a big labor supporter, and a union member myself, I don't think opposition to the card check is inherently "anti-union".  Intelligent people can disagree on this issue.  But I also don't think that a secret ballot is the only way to ensure a fair process.  Right now the process is often unfair in favor of the business community, who has had stronger allies in the DOL than the workers for the last ... oh ... 28 years or so.  Giving the union card check is a way to fix the problem of coercion on the part of management and does not, imo, infringe on anyone's fundamental liberty.  If you don't want to be part of the union, just vote no.  What's the union going to do?

Union people are not strong-armed thugs trying to rough up the little guy into forking over his dues.  Most are folks like you and me.  Hardworking, family folks.

Again, if the employer is interfering or delaying the process, then address that problem, rather than eliminating a secret ballot.

Actually, I think "veto prick" policy applies here. It's not the responsibility of pro-union people exclusively to protect workers from abuse. If you are going to veto this approach, you really ought to provide a concrete suggestion of how to accomplish this without having workers constantly attacked and threatened by the company over the course of the protracted period.

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here--people are signing legal documents but they don't count cause they are in public? I think it's crazy that all of the poor young men and women coerced in public to sign enlistment papers have no way of reneging after 18 while workers are assumed to not want a union even if they sign a legal document saying that they want a union without any force of cohersion..

Military recruitment is a sales job too. The difference is that I have yet to see someone lie to get someone else to sign a card, none of the card signing employees was 17, and none of them have died.

But sure, I'd happily support an automatically election provision along with extreme penalities and fines to any employer who violates the sanctity of the election. In the meantime, card check is much better than no card check and a protracted process, so I'd support your plan, but I'd also support the harvesting of unicorn meat, once plentiful enough, to eradicate world hunger.

if the delay between the card campaign and the election is the problem, then eliminate that delay.  Don't take away the secret ballot.--Sorry IP from my personal experience this shows you either you have had no experience in what happens during an organizing vote because that is what Card check does take away that delay. When employees take that so called secret vote to become a union, management starts a war against them to become one. Management has people that have years of education just to make sure that people don't organize into a union. Those Human Resource people work to delay certification for years so that secret vote never makes it to the Federal Labor Board for certification and if it does they hope they can peel some people off and decertify the vote on the way. While at the certification they argue some stupid argument so that sacred vote you are worried about means nothing. Management will hirer outside consultants to make sure that employees don't have an opportunity to work together to seek the benefits and wages they feel they deserve. If individuals can sign contracts for employment groups of people should be able to also.

every one of whom is honest, polite, God-fearing, decent, honorable, and family-oriented just like you and me-- 

Not everyone in management is bad and neither is everyone in the unions, I have not seen the bullying you speak of. You can't force people to join a union they are afraid they will be treated badly by their employers.