Secret ballots for union workers

[justhat]

So you have no problem with eliminating secret ballots?

No! It's not eliminating them! Read my earlier post. The secret ballot that the republicans want is in addition to the current system that is working just fine. They companies to hold the 'secret ballot' vote on the jobsite, at a time convenient for the employer (as he/she can determine the time so therefore convenient for them), after the employer has had the time and opportunity to coerce workers into voting no with threats. Like I want to vote "yes", by 'secret' ballot or not when my boss is walking around the room while I vote. What's stopping the boss from talking to the workers before the vote and making threats? Or firing people in advance of the vote to 'show' the others what will happen if they vote to unionize? Are you going to take the chance that even though every one of your coworkers said they want the union will actually vote with you and that you won't be the sole vote and then be fired?

All that seems a lot riskier than getting together with your coworkers, away from your boss, outside work or wherever, and deciding to organize. Then you can get 100% participation from the workers, the boss is informed from the NLRB that 100% of his employees want a union, and from there it's pretty much set. Why change that? What's the flaw in the current plan that needs changing? I don't see it.

An ftr, not that is matters, many of my friends/relatives are more than vocal people and are elected officers for their unions. No one tries to silence them and they thank their unions for their jobs, benefits, and salaries everyday.

 

[Magic Mom]

Yes, you're right, the union organizer knows who signed a card. But what kind of intimidation would they do? And to what benefit? Or what harm? The employer, otoh, can fire the employees who tried to organize the shop, but what can the union leader do?

And I say this as someone whose mother is in a union and is so grateful that she does.

The benefit of intimidation is to force the employee to sign the card. What exactly is wrong with the current system? Majority group of workers decide to organize; workers tell employer; employer decides to accept the majority or ask NLRB for secret ballot; ballot results confirm decision.

 

[justhat]

The benefit of intimidation is to force the employee to sign the card. What exactly is wrong with the current system? Majority group of workers decide to organize; workers tell employer; employer decides to accept the majority or ask NLRB for secret ballot; ballot results confirm decision.

How would the union rep force anyone to sign the card? The workers interested in a union can seek out a rep outside of work. So they bring in say 10 cards signed and there are 15 employees. The union rep would have to find out who the other 5 people are, hunt them down, intimidate them into signing. How often does that happen? I've never had any personal experience with it working that way, only in the way I've mentioned above.

 

[Magic Mom]

.

No! It's not eliminating them! Read my earlier post.

Yes it is. Under the "card check" or Employee Free Choice act, employers would no longer have the option of requesting a secret ballot (unless fraud is involved).




The secret ballot that the republicans want is in addition to the current system that is working just fine.

What "extra" secret ballot are you talking about? As far as I can tell, the Republicans want to keep the law as it currently stands, not add to the law. Its the Dems that want change to the law.


They companies to hold the 'secret ballot' vote on the jobsite, at a time convenient for the employer (as he/she can determine the time so therefore convenient for them), after the employer has had the time and opportunity to coerce workers into voting no with threats. Like I want to vote "yes", by 'secret' ballot or not when my boss is walking around the room while I vote.

No, the employer may observe the election, but may not speak to the voter or see the ballots. AN agent from the NLRB runs the show.

From the US Chamber of Commerce

Secret Ballot Elections Are the Fairest Way to Determine Employees’ Wishes
To ensure a fair election free of employer and union coercion, the NLRB follows strict procedures.4 An NLRB agent is present and oversees the entire voting process to make certain that neither the employer nor the union can determine how an individual employee votes. Throughout the election, both employer and union representatives are able to monitor the process. However, they are strictly observers and may not speak with the voters or see how a particular employee votes.

What's stopping the boss from talking to the workers before the vote and making threats? Or firing people in advance of the vote to 'show' the others what will happen if they vote to unionize? Are you going to take the chance that even though every one of your coworkers said they want the union will actually vote with you and that you won't be the sole vote and then be fired?

All that seems a lot riskier than getting together with your coworkers, away from your boss, outside work or wherever, and deciding to organize. Then you can get 100% participation from the workers, the boss is informed from the NLRB that 100% of his employees want a union, and from there it's pretty much set. Why change that? What's the flaw in the current plan that needs changing? I don't see it.

We don't want to change the current plan. The current plan allows for secret ballots if requested by the employer.

An ftr, not that is matters, many of my friends/relatives are more than vocal people and are elected officers for their unions. No one tries to silence them and they thank their unions for their jobs, benefits, and salaries everyday.

Your friends are fortunate to nat have faced intimidation from union organizers. Not everyone has been so lucky. The current system minimizes fraud and intimidation from both sides. Eliminating the secret ballot invites frad and ause from union organizers.

 

[Magic Mom]

How would the union rep force anyone to sign the card? The workers interested in a union can seek out a rep outside of work. So they bring in say 10 cards signed and there are 15 employees. The union rep would have to find out who the other 5 people are, hunt them down, intimidate them into signing. How often does that happen? I've never had any personal experience with it working that way, only in the way I've mentioned above.

Just because you haven't, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Co-workers are very capable of creating a work environment that is so hostile, you would be effectively forced to quit.
Did you know that according to the Daiy Labor report, unions win the majority of secret ballot elections?
The opportunity for fraud and intimidation is much great with "card check" then it is secret ballot.

 

[justhat]

Just because you haven't, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Co-workers are very capable of creating a work environment that is so hostile, you would be effectively forced to quit.
Did you know that according to the Daiy Labor report, unions win the majority of secret ballot elections?
The opportunity for fraud and intimidation is much great with "card check" then it is secret ballot.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but asking if you have any first-hand experience. Cause I do and haven't had those bad things happen, so I'd like to hear from someone who has and then maybe I'd change my stance.

 

[justhat]

Magic Mom, I can't quote you, but I'd like to respond to the employer not being able to talk to the employees. Sure, he can't during the vote, but what stops him from intimidating them before the vote takes place? He knows when the vote will occur, so why wouldn't he make his threats in the days preceeding? It's not like the NLRB can just show up and announce there's a vote here and now. And with the boss staring at you while you check your box, do you feel safe?

 

[Geoff_M]

How would the union rep force anyone to sign the card? The workers interested in a union can seek out a rep outside of work. So they bring in say 10 cards signed and there are 15 employees. The union rep would have to find out who the other 5 people are, hunt them down, intimidate them into signing.

Under your scenario, as I understand it, the company (more than 1/2 of the workers merely signing their cards) would be "unionized" without the other 5 people signing their cards. What people feel is likely to occur would be more of this scenario: 7 of the 15 workers sign their cards, but they did one more person to sign to make the business a union shop under the proposed changes to the law. The 7 workers dialog with the union rep and know the names of the other 8 and pass them on to the union. The union and the pro-union co-workers lobby them to sign their cards but the 8, for whatever reason, say "no thanks"... and then later come out of work to find something like a number of the refusers have had their cars "keyed" in the parking lot.

 

[Magic Mom]

Magic Mom, I can't quote you, but I'd like to respond to the employer not being able to talk to the employees. Sure, he can't during the vote, but what stops him from intimidating them before the vote takes place? He knows when the vote will occur, so why wouldn't he make his threats in the days preceeding? It's not like the NLRB can just show up and announce there's a vote here and now. And with the boss staring at you while you check your box, do you feel safe?

Nothing can stop the employer or the union organizers from exerting pressure prior to the vote (although it is against the law), but with a secret ballot, neither side knows who voted which way. However with the "card check," the union organizers would know who in effect "voted" by signing a card. That invites pressure by the union organizers.
This isn't about business vs. union. This is about fairness to the workers. They deserve a process that minimizes intimidation from ALL sides, not just one side.
Even the NLRB, who exists soley to protect the efforts of workers to organize, feels that eliminating the secret ballot is a bad choice for workers.

 

[justhat]

Under your scenario, as I understand it, the company (more than 1/2 of the workers merely signing their cards) would be "unionized" without the other 5 people signing their cards. What people feel is likely to occur would be more of this scenario: 7 of the 15 workers sign their cards, but they did one more person to sign to make the business a union shop under the proposed changes to the law. The 7 workers dialog with the union rep and know the names of the other 8 and pass them on to the union. The union and the pro-union co-workers lobby them to sign their cards but the 8, for whatever reason, say "no thanks"... and then later come out of work to find something like a number of the refusers have had their cars "keyed" in the parking lot.

And again, do you have personal expereince, or a link to that happening somehwere recently? Not saying it doesn't, again, but since I haven't had anything close to that happening, I'd like to know how often it does. From my own experience this all just seems to be an additional step, making it harder to become unionized, so I don't see the point.

 

[Geoff_M]

And again, do you have personal expereince, or a link to that happening somehwere recently? Not saying it doesn't, again, but since I haven't had anything close to that happening, I'd like to know how often it does. From my own experience this all just seems to be an additional step, making it harder to become unionized, so I don't see the point.

Just Google "union intimidation"...

The Heritage Foundation looked at NLRB data and filed complaints and found this:

Union Intimidation a Problem

Conversely, labor activists regularly downplay the possibility that unions would intimidate workers. They claim that there have been only 42 cases of forgery or coercion in card-check drives in the past 60 years. This is false.

This claim originated from union activists' analysis of a Human Resource Policy Association policy brief on EFCA. The brief included a list of 113 NLRB decisions involving "union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures."[9] The activists found that, of those 113 NLRB cases, only 42 directly concerned those issues. But that does not mean that there have been only 42 cases of union intimidation in the past 60 years. It means that the National Labor Relations Board has decided 42 cases concerning forgery or intimidation in the obtaining of union cards during that time. These are two different things.

The NLRB is labor law's equivalent of the Supreme Court. Most cases are decided well before they reach the full board, either in a settlement or in an administrative law judge's decision. The full board usually decides cases that involve novel legal issues, not the routine enforcement of the law. The union argument makes as much sense as examining 60 years of Supreme Court rulings, finding 42 that involved arson, and then claiming that there have been only 42 cases of arson in the United States during that time.

In fact, union coercion and intimidation are not as rare as labor activists contend. Thousands of unfair labor practices cases have been filed against unions since 2000, including 1,417 for coercive statements, 416 for violence and assaults, 546 for harassment, and 1,325 for threatening statements.[10] Many of these cases did not involve election campaigns, and the unions were not found guilty in every case, but these numbers show that union intimidation is a real problem that workers face.

 

[luckey-lasvegas]

The main differnce is who's counting the ballots and are both parties willing to agree on the out come. In the past the corporations are not willing to accept results that are not in there favor,and strecth the out come in long court battles which often never represent what the workers want. During the long court battle they do what ever they can to intimadate or weed out union supporters. People that look for union representaion do so for their benifit. I never felt pressured to join I did so because I felt that it was best for my family. To me it's the same Workers vs. Management struggle that has been going on since the beginning of organized labor. Greedy corporation will take as much as they can get from people until they are made to stop. In vegas our corpoations take good care of us and we take good care of the guest and everyone makes money, but without the collective bargining agreement I doubt that they would be so genourous.

 

[nataliesdaddy]

Just Google "union intimidation"...

The Heritage Foundation looked at NLRB data and filed complaints and found this:

let me see. Hoffa, Teamsters, Mafia... no accountability...

hmmmm wow, how could anyone believe there might be any problem with union coercion with the mafia and hoffa hangin around? No, there's no history of initimidatioon there. No history of mafia and uniojn involvement is there? And we all no the mafia god blass em... they don't intimidate people do they?

No sirree, the autoworkers union doesn't have to disclose pension investments or liabilities, or performance... unlike every corporate and public pension plan. I guess those loving unions only want secrecy when it helps protect their own criminal activity.

Unions + organized crime = scum that don't want secret ballots. .

 

[LuvDuke]

Let me see if I understand this: The GOP, the Heritage Foundation, and the Chamber of Commerce are now the protectors of union members and union organizing?

Excuse me ..........................

 

[justhat]

let me see. Hoffa, Teamsters, Mafia... no accountability...

hmmmm wow, how could anyone believe there might be any problem with union coercion with the mafia and hoffa hangin around? No, there's no history of initimidatioon there. No history of mafia and uniojn involvement is there? And we all no the mafia god blass em... they don't intimidate people do they?

No sirree, the autoworkers union doesn't have to disclose pension investments or liabilities, or performance... unlike every corporate and public pension plan. I guess those loving unions only want secrecy when it helps protect their own criminal activity.

Unions + organized crime = scum that don't want secret ballots. .

I believe I asked for a recent personal account or link to a recent story of union haggling. Since we're talking about the law for present day, the harassment should be present day too. So far I haven't seen one personal account or current link.

 

[Geoff_M]

In the past the corporations are not willing to accept results that are not in there favor,and strecth the out come in long court battles which often never represent what the workers want. During the long court battle they do what ever they can to intimadate or weed out union supporters.

I don't think employer-based intimidation is good either, but unless you are trying to say that it's only fair that the unions get to intimidate the workers too, I'm not sure that it matters in regard to the proposed changes in the law.

I believe I asked for a recent personal account or link to a recent story of union haggling. Since we're talking about the law for present day, the harassment should be present day too. So far I haven't seen one personal account or current link.

I'd call "since 2000" pretty current...

Thousands of unfair labor practices cases have been filed against unions since 2000, including 1,417 for coercive statements, 416 for violence and assaults, 546 for harassment, and 1,325 for threatening statements.

 

[Magic Mom]

And again, do you have personal expereince, or a link to that happening somehwere recently? Not saying it doesn't, again, but since I haven't had anything close to that happening, I'd like to know how often it does. From my own experience this all just seems to be an additional step, making it harder to become unionized, so I don't see the point.

I do not have personal experience from my work life. What does that matter? I've never flown in the space shuttle either, but we know there is one.
The point of ballots is to protect all involved. If the unions were really concerned about employer intimidation, instead of asking for the end of secret ballots, they would be asking for the voting process to take place away from the workplace without employer or union organizer observers. Card check doesn't protect workers, it protects unions.

 

[justhat]

I do not have personal experience from my work life. What does that matter? I've never flown in the space shuttle either, but we know there is one.
The point of ballots is to protect all involved. If the unions were really concerned about employer intimidation, instead of asking for the end of secret ballots, they would be asking for the voting process to take place away from the workplace without employer or union organizer observers. Card check doesn't protect workers, it protects unions.

Regardless of where the vote takes place, the boss still has time to talk to, or intimidate, workers beforehand. So how does that help?

And going with your thinking, about union intimidation, the union rep would also have the time to intimidate workers before a vote, regardless of location. So again, how does that help?

I just find it weird that the people here who are pro-secret ballot are not union members, but the ones that are not for it are union members. And oddly enough we feel the way the union reps, and the democrats, feel.

So if you're not in a union, or in a shop that feels threatened that a union may come in, what does the secret ballot matter to you?

 

[Magic Mom]

Regardless of where the vote takes place, the boss still has time to talk to, or intimidate, workers beforehand. So how does that help?

And going with your thinking, about union intimidation, the union rep would also have the time to intimidate workers before a vote, regardless of location. So again, how does that help?

I just find it weird that the people here who are pro-secret ballot are not union members, but the ones that are not for it are union members. And oddly enough we feel the way the union reps, and the democrats, feel.

So if you're not in a union, or in a shop that feels threatened that a union may come in, what does the secret ballot matter to you?

I don't have to have a personal stake to have an interest in a topic. The fact that I don't have a dog in the fight, might make me more unbiased. However, I do have family in unions, so I'm not clueless to how they feel. A few are for card check, and a few are against it.

ETA: The point you made about it being wierd that someone not in a union would care, got me thinking. That's exactly who should care, because those are the people that would possibly be affected if their workplace started to organize. If you are already in a union then the decision wouldn't affect you as long as you stayed at that job. If my workplace wanted to organize, I would not want card check, regardles of whether I wanted a union or not. I would want it to be my private decision, not open to organizer's or my employer's scrutiny. The only way for that to happen is a secert ballot.

 

[luckey-lasvegas]

You make it sound like union organizers and reps have unlimited access to employees. When you are organizing a non union business everything is restricted.It's not like companies are allowing the unions to come in and present a "case" to employees and then let them decide what they'd like to do by secret ballot. The companies use every opportunity to bash unions and keep their employees away from organizers. That is why all organizing is done in such a secretive manner. Most times the people who are working with a union to organize have no idea who else is working with the union until the union feels that it has a strong enough majority to ask for a card check. The LAST thing a union wants is to get someone fired because they were helping to organize. It would be like only listening to one candidates stump speech and then saying go ahead VOTE. How is that democracy?