[macintologist]

There has been debate recently over HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

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

This is how wikipedia describes the controversial aspect of this bill:

The most widely publicized change to the National Labor Relations Act is a change to employer disputes over recognition of an individual or labor organization claiming to represent employees. Currently an employer can demand a secret ballot election even if a majority of employees has signed cards authorizing a representative to bargain on their behalf, also known as a card check election. Under the EFCA, an employer can only dispute the legitimacy of an employee representative only if less than a majority of employees have signed authorization cards, or if illegal coercion is alleged.

I really don't know what the think of this. I generally support liberty and I generally disapprove of the coercive nature of unions in the sense that if you chose to work during a strike you can lose your job or something??

Anyway, how does everyone feel here. Are secret ballots in union elections a good thing, should they preserved? Should Congress even be considering this bill in the first place?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Anyway, how does everyone feel here. Are secret ballots in union elections a good thing, should they preserved? Should Congress even be considering this bill in the first place?

I'm not sure how folks feel here, but I know the men & women of the US Senate strongly believe in secret ballots, as they demonstrated last week. So there might be something to them.

Of course balloting should be IN SECRET. Otherwise, we should be able to watch poll results in real-time on a big sign outside the building. "Card Check" is just another example of the duality of The Left.

[lpkmckenna]

yes, ballots should be secret.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

yes, ballots should be secret.

Employer-controlled secret ballot elections make it too easy to identify union supporters and to fire them. As the article states, 20% of union supporters are fired for legal union activities. I would not support this legislation if we actually prosecuted retaliation claims, if employers weren't in control of the election, and if employers could not express any opinion whatsoever on anything related to union matters. If a level playing field is what anyone is concerned about, then keeping the status quo doesn't do the job. The EFCA does.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Employer-controlled secret ballot elections make it too easy to identify union supporters and to fire them.

Ok, so how exactly does this work ?

-t

[macintologist]

This seems like such an insider baseball labor law debate. They were discussing it on Sunday talk shows and I don't understand it, it's like the liberal democrat had his point and the conservative republican had his point but I really don't understand what the debate is all about.

Normally everyone would say that secret ballots is the ONLY way to conduct an election, but there's obviously something to this that gets Democrats riled up. Could someone here make a realistic argument for this?

[The Crook]

The wikipedia article is a great starting point.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

The wikipedia article is a great starting point.

I read the arguments on wikipedia but they were typical politician talking points.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I read the arguments on wikipedia but they were typical politician talking points.

Yeah, wiki doesn't really do the whole process justice.

Basically, when a union wants to organize a particular company, they send in a bunch of moles to get jobs at the company and eventually make some noise. Then they pay some "non-partisan" groups to write papers about the company and also set up some front groups to publicize how the company sponsors the eating of babies at every chance, etc. Oh, and they have talks about how the company is keeping their employees chained up and preventing them from finding better jobs elsewhere. Finally, when the union organizers have done everything possible to undermine the trust that employees have with the company they will have a vote on whether or not people want to pay for some union overhead. They get some thugs to "soften up" anyone who doesn't agree with unionization. Then, typically, the union loses and the organizers get mad and stamp their little feet and cry "foul." Or "fowl." (Some of them aren't too bright, so I'm not sure what the "fowl" thing is about.)

Oh, and the whole time the union is doing this, they're getting federal grant money and registering not-for-profit groups to professionally protest that the process isn't "inclusive" and that there are barriers to the "little guy." They might have millions of dollars tied up in advertising or sponsoring research about the "little guy" or "common worker." Thank [entity-of-choice here] these guys are thinking about us.

At least that's how it's been done when I was involved. But that's only happened five or six times for me or for my relatives, so what do I know anyway?

Oh, and the one thing in common with all of these I've been through: the biggest losers are the biggest union supporters. Guaranteed that the folks who are already free-riding everyone's patience will be pro-union. After all, it's the American way!

One more edit: More often than not, it seems that union organization is one of the last things to happen before a company (industry) goes out of business. Or moves offshore. I wonder why that is?

[The Crook]

Wikipedia didn't do the EFCA justice, but your post does?

You have a strange definition of justice...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

There has been debate recently over HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

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

This is how wikipedia describes the controversial aspect of this bill:


I really don't know what the think of this. I generally support liberty and I generally disapprove of the coercive nature of unions in the sense that if you chose to work during a strike you can lose your job or something??

If you choose to work during a strike, you generally lose your union membership. This makes a difference in certain states where "closed shops" (where you must be a member of the union to work) are allowed by law.

Unions aren't supposed to be "coercive." They are supposed to be a way that individual workers band together to have some leverage with which to bargain for fair and reasonable conditions, wages, and benefits in a system that puts most of the leverage in the hands of management. While this has not always been the case (a number of unions have been more interested in soaking management, or in building power that is not used for the benefit of the membership), unions are supposed to balance things out.

Here's an analysis of the bill from the Society for Human Resource Management. I agree with them that this bill would open the process to abuse by either the union or management. Having grown up in a union family, I personally like the idea that workers can express their desire for a union (any union) secretly, without fear of reprisal from either management or union organizers.

[macintologist]

I guess I'm still not getting it.

The secret ballot is a REQUIREMENT for fair and free democratic elections. Someone help me understand why Democrats in the House think that secret ballots during a union organizing election are any different?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I guess I'm still not getting it.

The secret ballot is a REQUIREMENT for fair and free democratic elections. Someone help me understand why Democrats in the House think that secret ballots during a union organizing election are any different?

Forming a union isn't a public election; it's a private decision that pertains only to one company. Federal or state election law has no bearing at all on these matters. There's no constitutional right to form a union; it's entirely a creation of our federal and state laws. Therefore, we can set forth in our statutes basically any sort of requirements for forming one.

Now, if you can't understand the benefits and drawbacks of the current system on even a basic level, then there's no point in really further discussing things. Proponents feel the current system isn't fair, that it stacks the deck against union supporters in all the ways listed on that wikipedia article. Opponents feel that union supporters will now coerce reluctant workers into joining.

I tend to feel that even *if* big burly men can now coerce the girly-men workers to join, it evens the playing field since employers can always coerce workers not to join at every step of the way, in all the ways listed in that wikipedia article.

Anything getting through?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yeah, wiki doesn't really do the whole process justice.

Awesome.

-t

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Now, if you can't understand the benefits and drawbacks of the current system on even a basic level, then there's no point in really further discussing things.

Anything getting through?

TRANSLATION: I'm taking my ball and going home.

Finally, RE: "it evens the playing field since employers can always coerce workers not to join at every step of the way."

Add to this: "unless they get caught doing so, or suspected of doing so, and then they're f*cked." You forgot THAT part. Federal and state agencies tend to dogpile companies that get caught or suspected for rigging union elections. Didn't read THAT on Wiki, did ya?

How about "workers can leave the company and work somewhere else at every step of the way"? Don't forget that part, too.

[Chongo]

Will it be illegal for a "union rep" to show up at you home?(aka we know where you live)

[lpkmckenna]

Time for my perspective. My father worked at a steel plant. The plant brought in a new plant manager who decided to blindly clean house. Most of the fired employees were losers, but some weren't. Fear spread through the plant, and they were quickly unionized to prevent such abuse again.

During organizing meetings, my father asked a few questions that irked union insiders. He wasn't anti-union, he just wanted to be sure that the Teamster were the union for them. Of course, his car and locker were vandalized just because he asked a couple of questions. Does that sound like an environment for a public ballot? I don't.