Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I think I'm starting to dislike unions...

123578

Posts

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    workers submitting cards stating that they seek to organize

    I may have misunderstood the card check thing, but my understanding was that this is not an accurate representation. The ability of workers to vote to unionize is unchanged, but my understanding of "card-check" is that it removed anonymity from such votes. That's fucked.

    the cards were never anonymous. It's just that now, if a majority sign cards saying they want a union, the election itself is bypassed and the union is formed on the spot.

    The argument against this is that before, the election acted as a check against intimidation by union organizers. The people who make that argument generally ignore the fact that prior to the change, the time between the card check and the election was generally used by the company to propagandize against unionization.

    ed:
    Secret ballots are good enough for every other election.

    other elections are not very much like unionizing elections

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    it doesn't seem like there's any "fair" way to set up a union election, really

    Secret ballots are good enough for every other election.

    To be honest, unions are greatly influenced by vanguard politics of the 19th century Left, and are oftentimes still set-up in a similar way in feel.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Workers in "right to work" states don't unionize because - guess what - most of those states are also "at-will" states, and the combination of the two means that unionizing just gives the bosses a list of who gets fired and made an object example of.
    All States are "at-will" (except California, to a certain degree). But, firing someone for trying to organize a union or for joining one is illegal under Federal law. State Right to Work laws don't override this protection. So, no, you are no more in danger of losing your job in Alabama for trying to organize a union than you are in New Jersey. Again, it seems that workers, when given the choice, don't find the idea of unions that attractive.
    And please, tell me how workers submitting cards stating that they seek to organize is not freely organizing, but businesses hiring anti-organization experts, forcing employees to listen to "Unions Are The Spawn Of Satan" speeches, looking for every loophole to fire the people leading the organization charge, and disingenuously calling elections not because they want one, but because doing so gives them more time to pull all this bullshit is?
    Because Card Check gets rids of secret ballots. Which means, Union organizers know who has signed the pro-organization card and who hasn't, and can exert pressure accordingly.

    Unions love the idea of Card Check because they know they can legally use tactics that employers cannot.

    Now you're coming down agains the concept of secret ballots?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    Because you don't know the actual story behind it, thanks to corporations spending millions on disinformation.

    In the current system, if the union gets to the 50%+1 point on the card check, the employer can, even though the majority of all employees have elected to organize, call for an election. And they always do, not for any noble reason, but because doing so means that now they have time to call in "hit teams" of anti-organization experts, who do everything in their power (both legally and not) to kill the organization movement prior to the election. Also, said elections are held on company property, under the eyes of management - gee, that doesn't sound like a situation that can be abused at all!

    The Employee Free Choice Act would have moved the authority to call an election on organization from the employer to the employees. Furthermore, it would have also significantly upped the fines the NLRB could levy against an employer caught trying to illegally influence an organization election. Needless to say, this would have kicked the employers out of the drivers seat when it came to organizing, so they ran all sorts of disinformation parroted by GOP and conservative mouthpieces in order to demonize it.

    So, it actually can be defended quite easily, once you know the actual truth.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because Card Check gets rids of secret ballots. Which means, Union organizers know who has signed the pro-organization card and who hasn't, and can exert pressure accordingly.

    Unions love the idea of Card Check because they know they can legally use tactics that employers cannot.

    Now you're coming down agains the concept of secret ballots?

    No it doesn't, you disingenuous twit. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Re: Card Check, here's Wikpedia's take, for what it's worth:
    The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace in the United States is a sign-up then an election process. In that, a petition or an authorization card with the signatures of at least 30% of the employees requesting a union is submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who then verifies and orders a secret ballot election. Two exceptions exist. If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.

    Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), if the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, the secret ballot election is bypassed and a union is automatically formed. Introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2005 and reintroduced in 2007 and 2009, the EFCA provides that the NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if a majority of employees have authorized that representation via majority sign-up (card check), without requiring a secret ballot election.[1][2] Under The EFCA, if over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would still order a secret ballot election for union representation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

    So, under Card Check, all a union has to do is exert enough pressure over time to get 50%+1 of the employees to sign the cards, and goodbye secret ballot.

    Under the current system, there's nothing an employer can directly do to prevent unionization. The most they can do is require a secret ballot.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because Card Check gets rids of secret ballots. Which means, Union organizers know who has signed the pro-organization card and who hasn't, and can exert pressure accordingly.

    Unions love the idea of Card Check because they know they can legally use tactics that employers cannot.

    Now you're coming down agains the concept of secret ballots?

    No it doesn't, you disingenuous twit. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

    eh, did EFCA not make a majority card check an automatic ratification of the union?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Under the current system, there's nothing an employer can directly do to prevent unionization. The most they can do is require a secret ballot.

    hahaha, no

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because Card Check gets rids of secret ballots. Which means, Union organizers know who has signed the pro-organization card and who hasn't, and can exert pressure accordingly.

    Unions love the idea of Card Check because they know they can legally use tactics that employers cannot.

    Now you're coming down agains the concept of secret ballots?

    No it doesn't, you disingenuous twit. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
    Rather than sputtering insults, maybe you should actually try and rebut what I wrote.

    I'll say it again- under Card Check, if a union can intimidate and coerce 50%+1 of the employees in a workplace to sign a (non-secret) authorization card, a union is automatically formed, without recourse to a secret ballot election. Under the current system, in such a situation, an employer can either recognize the union, or require a secret ballot vote.

    Are you going to deny that this is true?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm generally pro-union, especially considering their historic influence, but the card-check thing was just so fucked. I don't see how that can even be defended.

    Because you don't know the actual story behind it, thanks to corporations spending millions on disinformation.

    In the current system, if the union gets to the 50%+1 point on the card check, the employer can, even though the majority of all employees have elected to organize, call for an election. And they always do, not for any noble reason, but because doing so means that now they have time to call in "hit teams" of anti-organization experts, who do everything in their power (both legally and not) to kill the organization movement prior to the election. Also, said elections are held on company property, under the eyes of management - gee, that doesn't sound like a situation that can be abused at all!

    The Employee Free Choice Act would have moved the authority to call an election on organization from the employer to the employees. Furthermore, it would have also significantly upped the fines the NLRB could levy against an employer caught trying to illegally influence an organization election. Needless to say, this would have kicked the employers out of the drivers seat when it came to organizing, so they ran all sorts of disinformation parroted by GOP and conservative mouthpieces in order to demonize it.

    So, it actually can be defended quite easily, once you know the actual truth.

    Um, I fail to see how bypassing the secret-ballot election is any different from removing anonymity from the voting process. It's already illegal for employers to do anything more than propagandize (which, really, to anyone with a functioning brain shouldn't be terribly convincing). If "the eyes of management" are actually looking over any shoulders, then the NLRB isn't doing its job.

    And your statement about moving authority to call an election to the employees is just bullshit. 30% of employees have the authority to call an election. That is the status quo. Honestly, that even seems a little high to me, but this act wasn't to lower the threshold for calling an election, it's to bypass the election entirely. If the bill had been to lower the threshold of signatures to 20% and grant the NLRB power to charge heftier fines, I'd have been all for it.

    Why is a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB an inappropriate requisite for the formation of a union?

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SmallLady wrote: »
    SmallLady wrote: »
    John Doe wants a job.
    John Doe does not want to be in a [unsafe work environment].
    John Doe can go get a job at a [safe] work site like mcdonlds or google or toyota or microsoft or small family run business as examples



    If you really want to work for that [company with an unsafe work environment], then you may have to accept the fact that you will be [in an unsafe work environment]. (again, talking about non [OSHA regulated] environment) and If you dont' like the way your [company] is run or you think it sucks, you have the power to [go elsewhere].

    This is what people are talking about about when they say this argument is identical to what was used by employers in the pre-union age. The one thing that invalidates this comparison is that union employees at least get a vote to alter the course of their union, but the nature of union politics can be discouraging.


    That's a good point.

    However, how would one then accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be in a union & pay dues, but wants a union job with all the bargained contractual benefits that others paid for? That also doesn't dismantle the union by right to work legislation / open shops


    (again, I'm going to point out that I don't know a lot about right to work other than what I've learned on these boards as this type of legislation doesn't exist in BC)

    To the bolded, you don't. At least, you don't try to accommodate somebody who simply does not want to pay anything to a union at all.

    I guess I don't really have a problem with union shops in general, it just seems like in some cases the power the union wields (both with the employer as well as the government) allows them to be more abusive than the employer would be.

    Personally I'll go back to my original post, and say one easy measure that would certainly improve matters is legislation limiting how a union can collect dues. It should be required to be based on pay level (both hours and rate). It should be based on whether an employee is currently receiving other benefits (health and the like). Any "initiation" fees should be collected over time, say a year, so that you don't get kids picking up a summer job asked to pay a full $100 for the privilege (on top of the monthly dues). As it is, it seems like some unions (again, the one that led me to start this thread was the UFCW) have entered scam territory. I get the idea that it's not right for employees to receive the benefits without paying the dues...but can you agree that it's also not exactly cool for the employee to be forced to pay the dues and not receive the benefits?

    There simply has to be a better way. There has to be a happy medium between giving unions a free hand, and going straight right-to-work.

    mcdermott on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    workers submitting cards stating that they seek to organize

    I may have misunderstood the card check thing, but my understanding was that this is not an accurate representation. The ability of workers to vote to unionize is unchanged, but my understanding of "card-check" is that it removed anonymity from such votes. That's fucked.

    No, it didn't. Card check actually exists today (which is something that people like Modern Man don't want you to know) and it's actually the first phase of an organization movement. The thing is that even if the union presents 50%+1 in the card check (which they always do, because it's not worth the pain that's going to occur if they don't have the majority,) the employer can then call for a secret ballot election, which gets set up by the NLRB (oh, before I forget, card check and the election process are federally monitored procedures) for a few months down the road.

    Now., the employer does this, but not out of the kindness of their hearts and a desire to see the election process through. No, they do it because this now gives them several months to scare the living fuck out of the employees in order to kill the organization movement. They bring in a squad of anti-organization experts who begin a campaign of disinformation. So the employees are forced to go to a presentation (or five) about how unions are evil and all they want is your money and they use it to fund causes you don't believe in. Anti-union propaganda is put up in the break rooms while any pro-union propaganda is taken down, in order to futher indunuate the workers with the anti-union message. And that's the ostensibly legal stuff - if a company's really willing to get nasty, they're more than capable of figuring out key players in the staff and either pressuring them to support the anti-union position, or fire them outright. The goal is to kill the organization movement so that by the time the election rolls around, when the workers go to the secret ballot, on company grounds with managers supervising, the workers are sufficiently cowed and vote down the organization drive they supported just a few months ago.

    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot. Instead, what it does is it points out that allowing employers to call the election doesn't make any fucking sense other than to give them control of any move by workers to organize, and thus moves the authority from the employers to the employees. The secret ballot is still around, and if a majority of the workers call for it, an election will be set up. It's just that in the EFCA system, the employers have no authority dealing with a matter that is for the employees to deal with.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Elections about wheter or not to unionise are different because management can spread propaganda supporting their cause, while Unions can not. They can also threaten workers in a sub rosa fashion. Cutting peoples hours if they act to pro-union is a favourite. So is sticking them in the shitty jobs for long streches of time. If you support unions in a at-will state, you better not be tardy even a minute or make one mistake on the job, cause thats a firing offense.

    The idea that Federal laws are enough to prevent this is bullshit and people that claim its so(ModernMan) are lying.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because Card Check gets rids of secret ballots. Which means, Union organizers know who has signed the pro-organization card and who hasn't, and can exert pressure accordingly.

    Unions love the idea of Card Check because they know they can legally use tactics that employers cannot.

    Now you're coming down agains the concept of secret ballots?

    No it doesn't, you disingenuous twit. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
    Rather than sputtering insults, maybe you should actually try and rebut what I wrote.

    I'll say it again- under Card Check, if a union can intimidate and coerce 50%+1 of the employees in a workplace to sign a (non-secret) authorization card, a union is automatically formed, without recourse to a secret ballot election. Under the current system, in such a situation, an employer can either recognize the union, or require a secret ballot vote.

    Are you going to deny that this is true?

    Two questions for you: why do you always insinuate that unions can never convince people and always have to resort to intimidation, and why the fuck should the employer have a say in a matter that is purely of the employees?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot. Instead, what it does is it points out that allowing employers to call the election doesn't make any fucking sense other than to give them control of any move by workers to organize, and thus moves the authority from the employers to the employees. The secret ballot is still around, and if a majority of the workers call for it, an election will be set up. It's just that in the EFCA system, the employers have no authority dealing with a matter that is for the employees to deal with.

    does a 50%+1 card check mean automatic ratification under EFCA or does it not

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    the union presents 50%+1 in the card check (which they always do, because it's not worth the pain that's going to occur if they don't have the majority,)
    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot.

    So if a union is formed instantly with 50%+1 at the card check stage (like they ALWAYS DO :P) then when does that secret ballot that you claim hasn't been eliminated happen?

    And once more you use extremely disingenuous language by saying that "employers can call an election." Employers must endure an election if thirty percent of their employees are on board for the card check.

    Once again, why is it an unacceptable burden on employees to participate in a NLRB election?

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Elections about wheter or not to unionise are different because management can spread propaganda supporting their cause, while Unions can not.
    What? Surely corporations have more resources to bring to bear in a propaganda war, but there's nothing preventing unions from arguing the merits of their position. With the advent of the internet, there's a wonderful place to anonymously discuss union activities from the comfort of your boxer shorts in your home, without having to go down to the waterfront and pray the pinkertons don't find you there.

    I don't disagree that terrible bullshit likely occurs in defiance of federal law, but I don't see why the answer is to abandon a secret ballot. There have to be some other steps to take before that.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Two questions for you: why do you always insinuate that unions can never convince people and always have to resort to intimidation,
    If it's a matter of convincing employees, then unions shouldn't be afraid of secret ballots. There is no good reason to demand public voting in such contexts unless you're looking to pressure people who are unwilling to vote your way.
    and why the fuck should the employer have a say in a matter that is purely of the employees?
    The only say an employer has is requiring a secret ballot, which is how we handle pretty much every other fucking election in this country. With a secret ballot, people can vote their mind without feat of intimidation or coercion. The fact that employers are in favor of secret ballots but unions aren't, tells me all I need to know about unions' preferred tactics when it comes to "convincing" employees to unionize.

    What's your fear of secret ballots- the fact that people might vote against you?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot. Instead, what it does is it points out that allowing employers to call the election doesn't make any fucking sense other than to give them control of any move by workers to organize, and thus moves the authority from the employers to the employees. The secret ballot is still around, and if a majority of the workers call for it, an election will be set up. It's just that in the EFCA system, the employers have no authority dealing with a matter that is for the employees to deal with.

    does a 50%+1 card check mean automatic ratification under EFCA or does it not
    It does. AngelHedgie is correct that the secret ballot will continue to exist- but only in cases where 30%-50% of the employees sign the card.

    Once you get 50%+1 under Card Check, automatic union.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    the union presents 50%+1 in the card check (which they always do, because it's not worth the pain that's going to occur if they don't have the majority,)
    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot.

    So if a union is formed instantly with 50%+1 at the card check stage (like they ALWAYS DO :P) then when does that secret ballot that you claim hasn't been eliminated happen?

    And once more you use extremely disingenuous language by saying that "employers can call an election." Employers must endure an election if thirty percent of their employees are on board for the card check.

    Once again, why is it an unacceptable burden on employees to participate in a NLRB election?

    Yeah, you're missing the point.

    All of that remains under the EFCA. What gets removed is the ability of the employer to respond to a 50%+1 card check with "Fuck you, we're still going to have an election." Which they have the ability to do right now.

    And the issue with the elections isn't that it's a burden, but the lag time allows the employer to engage in a campaign of disinformation and outright intimidation, using their position of authority to influence workers to vote the way they want.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    It isn't so much a fear of secret ballots as it is a fear of coercion and intimidation by management during the lagtime between the card check and the election.

    So the argument for/against card check really boils down to who is the bigger dickwad: management or the union. I'm pro-union so I believe card check is a net good thing and its potential for abuse is dwarfed by management's documented abuses under the current system.



    Edit: beat'd and limed

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The Employee Free Choice Act, despite the lies that the conservatives pushed out, does not eliminate the secret ballot. Instead, what it does is it points out that allowing employers to call the election doesn't make any fucking sense other than to give them control of any move by workers to organize, and thus moves the authority from the employers to the employees. The secret ballot is still around, and if a majority of the workers call for it, an election will be set up. It's just that in the EFCA system, the employers have no authority dealing with a matter that is for the employees to deal with.

    does a 50%+1 card check mean automatic ratification under EFCA or does it not
    It does. AngelHedgie is correct that the secret ballot will continue to exist- but only in cases where 30%-50% of the employees sign the card.

    Once you get 50%+1 under Card Check, automatic union.
    the union presents 50%+1 in the card check (which they always do, because it's not worth the pain that's going to occur if they don't have the majority,)

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    and why the fuck should the employer have a say in a matter that is purely of the employees?
    The only say an employer has is requiring a secret ballot, which is how we handle pretty much every other fucking election in this country. With a secret ballot, people can vote their mind without feat of intimidation or coercion. The fact that employers are in favor of secret ballots but unions aren't, tells me all I need to know about unions' preferred tactics when it comes to "convincing" employees to unionize.

    this is total bullshit and betrays a complete lack of understanding of how the union election process actually works.

    Unionizing elections aren't like elections for public office. They aren't contests between two equal, or even theoretically equal, sides. Prior to the existence of a union the employer has all sorts of power over the employees (especially in "right to work" states), and they use that power as leverage against the formation of unions.

    EFCA was an attempt by organized labor to swing the leverage over to their side (this part of EFCA anyway; the other provisions are actually pretty good stuff and relatively noncontroversial), nothing more and nothing less.

    If there actually is a way for unionizing elections to be made even, I'm not sure what it is and I can't think when I've read any really innovative thinking on the subject. Just waving the phrase "secret ballot" around as though it makes these elections completely fair and impartial is ridiculous.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    It isn't so much a fear of secret ballots as it is a fear of coercion and intimidation by management during the lagtime between the card check and the election.

    So the argument for/against card check really boils down to who is the bigger dickwad: management or the union. I'm pro-union so I believe card check is a net good thing and its potential for abuse is dwarfed by management's documented abuses under the current system.

    I don't disagree that there's a serious problem with management intimidation, this just seems like an ass-terrible way to deal with it.

    Is there a way for the management to tell who signed the card check, for instance? In that case I would think that some measures to protect the anonymity of employees who sign card checks might be sensible.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Elections about wheter or not to unionise are different because management can spread propaganda supporting their cause, while Unions can not.
    What? Surely corporations have more resources to bring to bear in a propaganda war, but there's nothing preventing unions from arguing the merits of their position. With the advent of the internet, there's a wonderful place to anonymously discuss union activities from the comfort of your boxer shorts in your home, without having to go down to the waterfront and pray the pinkertons don't find you there.

    I don't disagree that terrible bullshit likely occurs in defiance of federal law, but I don't see why the answer is to abandon a secret ballot. There have to be some other steps to take before that.

    There is a differense between 8 hours of nonstop propaganda and a furtive logging at a union site. Besides how are employes going to learn about this web site?

    Plus the dirty tricks? Anybody that looks pro-union is going to be on the reciving end of it.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    It isn't so much a fear of secret ballots as it is a fear of coercion and intimidation by management during the lagtime between the card check and the election.

    So the argument for/against card check really boils down to who is the bigger dickwad: management or the union. I'm pro-union so I believe card check is a net good thing and its potential for abuse is dwarfed by management's documented abuses under the current system.

    I don't disagree that there's a serious problem with management intimidation, this just seems like an ass-terrible way to deal with it.

    Is there a way for the management to tell who signed the card check, for instance? In that case I would think that some measures to protect the anonymity of employees who sign card checks might be sensible.

    Or, you know, you oculd stop fetishizing the secret ballot. Hell, Iowa doesn't even use one for Presidential primaries - does that make their results any less legitimate?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    All of that remains under the EFCA. What gets removed is the ability of the employer to respond to a 50%+1 card check with "Fuck you, we're still going to have an election." Which they have the ability to do right now.
    Right, and this is functionally indistinguishable from ending the NLRB secret ballot process. You said yourself that no union will send a 30% card in now, so why should I expect that to ever happen in the future?
    And the issue with the elections isn't that it's a burden, but the lag time allows the employer to engage in a campaign of disinformation and outright intimidation, using their position of authority to influence workers to vote the way they want.

    I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I disagree that eliminating secret ballots from the process is a reasonable method for doing so.

    The obvious target (to me) is that lag time. Get rid of it, by whatever means necessary. I doubt there's any logistical reason for it to exist in the computer age.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    It isn't so much a fear of secret ballots as it is a fear of coercion and intimidation by management during the lagtime between the card check and the election.

    So the argument for/against card check really boils down to who is the bigger dickwad: management or the union. I'm pro-union so I believe card check is a net good thing and its potential for abuse is dwarfed by management's documented abuses under the current system.

    I don't disagree that there's a serious problem with management intimidation, this just seems like an ass-terrible way to deal with it.

    Is there a way for the management to tell who signed the card check, for instance? In that case I would think that some measures to protect the anonymity of employees who sign card checks might be sensible.

    Or, you know, you oculd stop fetishizing the secret ballot. Hell, Iowa doesn't even use one for Presidential primaries - does that make their results any less legitimate?

    Yes. And seriously, fuck Iowa, and the entire primary system. (this was a terrible example to pick dude)

    EDIT: though I remain seriously angry at Iowa for its disproportionate importance in the national primary, I looked up the way their causing works, and it actually sounds kind of cool. I do not fully understand it, though. In any case, it's not really relevant to the topic at hand, wherein I am "fetishizing secret ballots" since there's of course no reason to ascribe any value to the process other than pseudo-religious fervor.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The biggest problem with unions these days is that much of what their original roles served is now provided for by law. Workers are protected by right-to-work laws and OSHA, and if Unions really wanted to provide better environments for laborers they would be working out ways to ensure companies hired from within the national labor pool.

    Nowadays they're kinda like keeping a lion around to stay free of mice. Sure, they do the job, but then they wreck a bunch of other shit, and the problem could be solved in several better ways.

    Atomika on
  • AsiinaAsiina Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think part of the argument for forced joining is that the union is at its strongest and best bargaining position if it represents all the employees.

    As well, similar to other benefits, you are paying in with the knowledge that you are probably not going to need to take advantage of this service, but it's there should you require it. You can't opt out of health insurance or unemployment insurance, and hopefully you will never need either, but it's a safety net.

    Finally, you benefit from your union being present in your workplace whether you directly seek them out or not. Managers are more likely to stick to the rules if they know there are consequences. Also you get the benefit of a raise from your collective agreement.

    Asiina on
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    Houn on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    "Hi! If you unionize you'll have a better wage, better benefits and more sick/personal/vacation days as a result of our collective bargaining."

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • AsiinaAsiina Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    That's intimidation, how?

    Asiina on
  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Asiina wrote: »
    That's intimidation, how?

    There are some mysteries of the Libertarian mind better left alone.

    Perhaps they're intimidating the free market?

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Asiina wrote: »
    That's intimidation, how?

    There are some mysteries of the Libertarian mind better left alone.

    Perhaps they're intimidating the free market?

    The invisible hand just got a vicious bitchslap right there. :P

    Seriously, though. I'm neither for or against unions; I view them as simply something that exists, and like all somethings, probably sucks, unless proven otherwise. This particular argument, though, makes abso-fucking-lutely no sense at all to me.

    "You better vote for the union or... or... or we'll send you a strongly worded letter!"

    Houn on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Asiina wrote: »
    That's intimidation, how?

    There are some mysteries of the Libertarian mind better left alone.

    Is is true that if you psychoanalyze a Libertarian, your head explodes?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The biggest problem with unions these days is that much of what their original roles served is now provided for by law. Workers are protected by right-to-work laws and OSHA, and if Unions really wanted to provide better environments for laborers they would be working out ways to ensure companies hired from within the national labor pool.

    Nowadays they're kinda like keeping a lion around to stay free of mice. Sure, they do the job, but then they wreck a bunch of other shit, and the problem could be solved in several better ways.

    Laws can be changed. Without the "special interest unions" whispering sweet nothings into our legislators ears, the incentive not to get rid of these protections sadly fades.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    The word comes up not because there's any specific reason to believe that unions do or would intimidate employees beyond the natural incentive to do so; rather, it comes up because the purpose of anonymous elections is to prevent intimidation. So by ending anonymous elections, a potential for intimidation that just didn't exist before is introduced.

    As to "how" the only limitation is your imagination. You only have to sign a card once, so it could be as simple as receiving three phone calls a day until you relent. Or perhaps the guys at the bar won't talk to you anymore, or whatever. The biggest difference between anonymous and public votes isn't the result of anything illegal or even immoral: it's just normal social pressure. Still, that damages the validity of such votes as they no longer represent the true choice of an individual.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited December 2009
    dispatch.o wrote: »

    If I didn't despise SEIU Local 250 before that day, I certainly did after.

    SEIU Local 250?

    Holy shit I might know you.

    mrdobalina on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    The word comes up not because there's any specific reason to believe that unions do or would intimidate employees beyond the natural incentive to do so; rather, it comes up because the purpose of anonymous elections is to prevent intimidation. So by ending anonymous elections, a potential for intimidation that just didn't exist before is introduced.

    As to "how" the only limitation is your imagination. You only have to sign a card once, so it could be as simple as receiving three phone calls a day until you relent. Or perhaps the guys at the bar won't talk to you anymore, or whatever. The biggest difference between anonymous and public votes isn't the result of anything illegal or even immoral: it's just normal social pressure. Still, that damages the validity of such votes as they no longer represent the true choice of an individual.

    But elections after a 3 month campaign by managment to force a no vote is?

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
Sign In or Register to comment.