The Employee Free Choice Act is DOOMED*

[synapsetx]

Alright, so today it's official - the war over the Employee Free Choice Act is on.

Mark my words - if there is no amendment regarding the "card check" provision of this legislation, it will fail. It will never get the 60 votes needed. If that happens, I lay blame on the SEIU, Polosi, & Reed, To date, I have YET to see a decent argument that holds water to keep the card-check provision as it stands. It is the Achilles Heel of the bill.

Time to compromise folks.

I'll give you a few options.

1) As noted by Chris Matthews on Hardball - what about if you only have a card check to get an election, say 30% of employees?

2) Pull the card check option completely. There is too much else good done in this bill

3) REPLACE the card check with something to fight the "nuclear" option, which Walmart is so notorious for - closing the store as a direct punishment and "containment strategy" if it dares to unionize.

There is a better way, and you ARROGANT PRICKS aren't discussing it. SHOW some willingness to bend, show some compromise, and find a better way. The road you're headed down is going to fail. They've tapped into the American ideal of "one person, one vote" and raised the specter of being pressured to agree. (Tony Soprano style)

Mark my words... YOU WILL FAIL IF YOU DON'T CHANGE COURSE NOW!

 

[halik]

No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll be subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

edit: Let me rephrase the above, having 50%+1 de facto removes the secret ballot. Why go for 30% and then have people vote in secret, when you can get pressure the other 20%+1 and get the result you want with certainty?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

 

[synapsetx]

Not asking to remove secret ballot, of anything, that is the saving grace of the bill. The problem is the "card check" which has been derided so heavily.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

Exactly. Coercion.

 

[synapsetx]

Exactly folks, you are showcasing my concerns. The proponents have failed miserably in countering these "Tony Soprano" type scenarios... "accidents happen ya know, to people dat dont sign der card. Fallin down stairs and such, ya know? I'd hate for somethin like dat ta happen to you..."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

Right.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

Right.

I was addressing the last point you made - it does de facto remove the ability to vote in secret. Why would you go for 30% and petition with uncertain outcome when you can just pressure people into 50%+1 and get it done. Objecting the latter removes the "secrect" part of your vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

Right.

I was addressing the last point you made - it does de facto remove the ability to vote in secret. Why would you go for 30% and petition with uncertain outcome when you can just pressure people into 50%+1 and get it done. Objecting the latter removes the "secrect" part of your vote.

Actually now as I read up about it more it would appear that this whole 'removal of the secret ballot' is a total load of horse shit. There are already mechanisms for non-secret union forming (like having 51% of the employees sign a card). The only difference I can detect is that under the old system the employer had to say it was okay for their workers to do it, and under the new system the employer wouldn't get a say. Can't say that I'm really too worried about that.

It would appear that the situation you worry about already exists and has existed since the beginning of unions.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

Right.

I was addressing the last point you made - it does de facto remove the ability to vote in secret. Why would you go for 30% and petition with uncertain outcome when you can just pressure people into 50%+1 and get it done. Objecting the latter removes the "secrect" part of your vote.

Actually now as I read up about it more it would appear that this whole 'removal of the secret ballot' is a total load of horse shit. There are already mechanisms for non-secret union forming (like having 51% of the employees sign a card). The only difference I can detect is that under the old system the employer had to say it was okay for their workers to do it, and under the new system the employer wouldn't get a say. Can't say that I'm really too worried about that.

It would appear that the situation you worry about already exists and has existed since the beginning of unions.

Let me guess you just read the wiki article? Note the disclaimer on the top, very biased.

There is no current 50%+1 rule right now, even if you have 100% of people signing the cards you still need the secret ballot to actually verify that people will vote the same without any pressure.

AFLCIO and SEIU want to frame the debate and make it sound like this is already in action... the current law states you need at least 30% people to have a secret election and then the union is formed. Having 50%+1 makes no difference, as there is no union recognized until there is a secret eleciton.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Let me guess you just read the wiki article? Note the disclaimer on the top, very biased.

There is no current 50%+1 rule right now, even if you have 100% of people signing the cards you still need the secret ballot to actually verify that people will vote the same without any pressure. AFLCIO and SEIU want to frame the debate about this to make it sound like this is already in action... the current law states you need at least 30% people to have a secret election and then the union is formed.

No, that's not what I read according to the National Labor Relations Board. Can you show me a link that says a secret ballot is always required, even under voluntary recognition?

EDIT: In fact, in this case the petitioners are specifically arguing against such a card check only method of certification for exactly the reasons you mentioned earlier, and that is under current law.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Let me guess you just read the wiki article? Note the disclaimer on the top, very biased.

There is no current 50%+1 rule right now, even if you have 100% of people signing the cards you still need the secret ballot to actually verify that people will vote the same without any pressure. AFLCIO and SEIU want to frame the debate about this to make it sound like this is already in action... the current law states you need at least 30% people to have a secret election and then the union is formed.

No, that's not what I read according to the National Labor Relations Board. Can you show me a link that says a secret ballot is always required, even under voluntary recognition?

Companies may voluntarily recognize them, but they don't have to. Once NLRB certifies the secret ballot, then they have to. I'm saying to make a company recognize the union, you have to get the secret ballot, whether you have 30% or 50%.

I can't see a reason why a company would agree to voluntary recognition, it's virtually always in their best interest to proceed with the secret ballot. Saying that the 50% +1 rule is how it works at the moment is misleading at best. Employers will want to independently verify that their workforce wants to join the union... or more realistically they want to chance it and see if it doesn't pass.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Let me guess you just read the wiki article? Note the disclaimer on the top, very biased.

There is no current 50%+1 rule right now, even if you have 100% of people signing the cards you still need the secret ballot to actually verify that people will vote the same without any pressure. AFLCIO and SEIU want to frame the debate about this to make it sound like this is already in action... the current law states you need at least 30% people to have a secret election and then the union is formed.

No, that's not what I read according to the National Labor Relations Board. Can you show me a link that says a secret ballot is always required, even under voluntary recognition?

Companies may voluntarily recognize them, but they don't have to. Once NLRB certifies the secret ballot, then they have to. I'm saying to make a company recognize the union, you have to get the secret ballot, whether you have 30% or 50%.

I can't see a reason why a company would agree to voluntary recognition, it's virtually always in their best interest to proceed with the secret ballot.

Okay, but why does that matter? There are already vehicles to proceed with non-secret certification. The only difference between now and with this new bill (that I can detect) is that the employer isn't the one that gets to make that call. I don't see why an employer should be deciding if his employees should unionize to begin with, and I certainly am not going to lose sleep over that ability being taken away.

If you want to argue against non-secret methods of unionization as a concept, I'm pretty down with that. I agree that people should be as free from coercion as possible, although this would also include limiting a lot of anti-union activity that employers already undertake. My point was that this situation already exists, this bill only modifies its application. I think to oppose this bill based on the idea that its removing the secret ballot is a bit disingenuous.

EDIT: Oh, and companies obviously do voluntarily recognize unions, or else such a case as what I cited would not exist.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

Let me guess you just read the wiki article? Note the disclaimer on the top, very biased.

There is no current 50%+1 rule right now, even if you have 100% of people signing the cards you still need the secret ballot to actually verify that people will vote the same without any pressure. AFLCIO and SEIU want to frame the debate about this to make it sound like this is already in action... the current law states you need at least 30% people to have a secret election and then the union is formed.

No, that's not what I read according to the National Labor Relations Board. Can you show me a link that says a secret ballot is always required, even under voluntary recognition?

Companies may voluntarily recognize them, but they don't have to. Once NLRB certifies the secret ballot, then they have to. I'm saying to make a company recognize the union, you have to get the secret ballot, whether you have 30% or 50%.

I can't see a reason why a company would agree to voluntary recognition, it's virtually always in their best interest to proceed with the secret ballot.

Okay, but why does that matter? There are already vehicles to proceed with non-secret certification. The only difference between now and with this new bill (that I can detect) is that the employer isn't the one that gets to make that call. I don't see why an employer should be deciding if his employees should unionize to begin with, and I certainly am not going to lose sleep over that ability being taken away.

If you want to argue against non-secret methods of unionization as a concept, I'm pretty down with that. I agree that people should be as free from coercion as possible, although this would also include limiting a lot of anti-union activity that employers already undertake. My point was that this situation already exists, this bill only modifies its application. I think to oppose this bill based on the idea that its removing the secret ballot is a bit disingenuous.

EDIT: Oh, and companies obviously do voluntarily recognize unions, or else such a case as what I cited would not exist.

It matters because it does open the doors for coercion on the union part, because under the current statue I would expect the employers to require a ballot if they suspect any sort of peer pressure.

In any case, the employer is not "deciding if his employees should unionize", they merely have the option to call for an official vote. The vote is ultimately what decided whether the employees unionize... not unionizers or employers.

If you want to give the workers free choice under this act, have both the employers and unionizers run around with 'card check' and 'card uncheck' cards... this way at least you can be coerced equally...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

It matters because it does open the doors for coercion on the union part, because under the current statue I would expect the employers to require a ballot if they suspect any sort of peer pressure.

In any case, the employer is not "deciding if his employees should unionize", they merely have the option to call for an official vote.

If you want to give the workers free choice under this act, have both the employers and unionizers run around with 'card check' and 'card uncheck' cards... this way at least you can be coerced equally...

Well first of all employers already have lots of methods at their disposal for anti-union intimidation, that's not really relevant to this conversation though.

What I'm saying is that employers should have no say whatsoever over if their employees unionize or not. Period. In this case the only difference between the current rule and the proposed one is the consent of the employer, and I don't consider the employer's ability to consent or not as any point of concern for me whatsoever.

I really do share your ideas about limiting workplace coercion of employees. I fully support the secret ballot, and I think that should be the ONLY way to unionize. It's not though, and this bill isn't making it that way.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik

It matters because it does open the doors for coercion on the union part, because under the current statue I would expect the employers to require a ballot if they suspect any sort of peer pressure.

In any case, the employer is not "deciding if his employees should unionize", they merely have the option to call for an official vote.

If you want to give the workers free choice under this act, have both the employers and unionizers run around with 'card check' and 'card uncheck' cards... this way at least you can be coerced equally...

Well first of all employers already have lots of methods at their disposal for anti-union intimidation, that's not really relevant to this conversation though.

What I'm saying is that employers should have no say whatsoever over if their employees unionize or not. Period. In this case the only difference between the current rule and the proposed one is the consent of the employer, and I don't consider the employer's ability to consent or not as any point of concern for me whatsoever.

I really do share your ideas about limiting workplace coercion of employees. I fully support the secret ballot, and I think that should be the ONLY way to unionize. It's not though, and this bill isn't making it that way.

I would agree and add the point that neither unionizers or employers should have any say in the matter... which is why there should *always* be a secret ballot.

As I said before, employers DO NOT have a say or any sort of consent in the matter, they only have the option to either recognize the union right away or make people vote in secret. So unless there was a pressure from unionizers, the outcome of the secret ballot should be the same as the card check.

If you want to limit cohercion form employers, make the threshold for petition lower and annonymous... If i was determined to stop my plant form unionizing, that's where I'd focus. You can't pressure or threaten people that vote anonymously and in secrecy, but you sure can pressure them from putting their name on the card.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: halik

I would agree and add the point that neither unionizers or employers should have any say in the matter... which is why there should *always* be a secret ballot.

As I said before, employers don't have a say or any sort of consent in the matter, they only have the option to either recognize the union right away or make people vote in secret. So unless there was a pressure from unionizers, the outcome of the secret ballot should be the same as the card check.

If you want to limit cohercion form employers, make the threshold for petition lower... If i was determined to stop my plant form unionizing, that's where I'd focus. You can't pressure people that vote secretly, but you sure can pressure them from putting their name on the card.

To be fair the NLRB decision addresses the voluntary certification and employee intimidation issue. When employees contest union formation it frequently is not because they're worried about how happy their employees are going to be in the union.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision. You simply cannot make a valid argument for removing the ability to vote in secret, otherwise you'll eb subject to pressure from both the employer and union organizers.

You do realize that the secret ballot provision is still in there, right? I agree that it does raise the potential for abuse as it does not 100% require the secret ballot, but it is not removing the ability to vote in secret if those involved decide to.

A: "Sign the card, we need 50% +1 to get the union recognized"
B: "No thanks, I'd rather go for the secret ballot"
A: "Why so you can vote against it? You scab bastard"

I'm not really anti-union, but yeah I can see that happening. One could easily get on the wrong side of their co-workers very quickly.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: halik
No way in hell it will pass if the statute removes the secret ballot provision.

So you're against employees having free choice?!? Hah, you know that's what they'll label the opposition after giving the bill such a glorious title. Since it endangers the secret ballot, I'd like to call it the stick it and break it off act.

 

[Craig234]

What 'other great things' does this bill do than make the card system not require employer approval?

I agree with a point made on the Rachel Maddows show on this topic today, that it is far, far more likely today that the employed intimidates the employees against the union, than that the union intimidates the employee for the union (they used '100 to 1', which may be right). One statistic they mentioned was that in 35% of the cases of unions being pushed, the employer gets rid of employees who are pushing it.

So I'm in favor for a variety of reasons of shifting the pendulum to the direction to make things easier for unions to be formed - I think they are good for society generally.

Having said all that, I'm not convinced yet that the card system change is needed; I'd rather see more protections of the process for workers to push for unions.

While it seems very rare for the unions to be the 'coercive' ones - and as I understand the coerscion from employer or union is and sould be illegal - it's not quite clear to me what the benefit is of the cards over the secret ballot, other than increasing the odds for the union coercion to increase. I'm open to arguments either way on that.

 

[smack Down]

For people in love with the secret ballot, how come a secret ballot isn't need for other contracts?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

So I'm in favor for a variety of reasons of shifting the pendulum to the direction to make things easier for unions to be formed - I think they are good for society generally.

<facepalm> Yes, because we've seen clearly in every company and industry with strong union membership that things run efficiently and are very cost effective. :roll: Like the automobile .....errrr...... the steel indus........ummm, I mean..... the post office.....errrrrr.... well, the government offices like the dmv.......ooops.

Unions were a necessary evil at one point to offset employer power. The need for that protection has largely gone away (with certain exceptions), and unions should disappear with it. Anything done to wipe them out is generally a good thing.

A secret ballot does not benefit any side (employer / union) more than the other, it simply means people can vote the way they want to without facing repercussions from either side based on their vote. Attempting to remove that ability is just a ploy to force more people into unions.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: smack Down
For people in love with the secret ballot, how come a secret ballot isn't need for other contracts?

Like?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Craig234

So I'm in favor for a variety of reasons of shifting the pendulum to the direction to make things easier for unions to be formed - I think they are good for society generally.

<facepalm> Yes, because we've seen clearly in every company and industry with strong union membership that things run efficiently and are very cost effective. :roll: Like the automobile .....errrr...... the steel indus........ummm, I mean..... the post office.....errrrrr.... well, the government offices like the dmv.......ooops.

Unions were a necessary evil at one point to offset employer power. The need for that protection has largely gone away (with certain exceptions), and unions should disappear with it. Anything done to wipe them out is generally a good thing.

A secret ballot does not benefit any side (employer / union) more than the other, it simply means people can vote the way they want to without facing repercussions from either side based on their vote. Attempting to remove that ability is just a ploy to force more people into unions.

Stagnant wages (real wages; adjusted for inflation etc) and companies cutting benefits (switching to very high deductible plans, among other things, that they also have to contribute into every month) tell a different story. Then again, I guess people enjoy their $2000+ deductible medical coverage since they keep arguing against their own benefit.