Workers deserve secret vote for union election

[Jhhnn]

Interesting, tcsenter, that you'd refer to "coercion, intimidation and repressive methods" as employed by unions w/o any links or specific examples- which kinda figures, seeing as how these methods are the tried and true tools of corporate America- from the Pinkertons of a hundred years ago to these guys, today-

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54p.police.html

Or the "counseling sessions" sponsored by Walmart and others, where hapless employees are singled out to endure harangues by management for days on end...

The current wave of anti-unionism was started largely by that Darling of the Conservatives, Ronnie Reagan, when he broke the Air Traffic Controllers Union, and through a well coordinated FUD campaign on a lot of different levels. Funny how Ronnie once made his living leading the Screen Actors' Guild.... and allegedly fingered left leaning actors for blackballing by friends of Smokin' Joe McCarthy....

I will agree, however, that Union tactics haven't kept pace with those of employers, or with subtle changes to the law and interpretation of it. That'll change, however as continued greed at the top becomes more and more obvious, and odious, as more and more formerly middle class families are squeezed into the lower class...

Most of this crowing about "freedom" in the workplace ignores the power disparity between unorganized workers and management, quite deliberately. In order to be "free" in the manner tcsenter and CkG advocate, one has to discard the entire concept of democracy, and it also means that you'll be totally at the mercy of the management.

Speaking of crow, your Jim Crow analogy is just as inflammatory and inaccurate as the slavery analogy. Unions don't discourage any worker from expressing their opinion in terms of voting- in fact, unions require a majority vote of some kind or another in order to establish themselves in any workplace..., and also require regular votes from the membership in order to continue operation... only those workers who refuse membership are denied a vote at the regular meetings... Kinda like only citizens get to vote in our election process...

 

[Jhhnn]

You apparently dismiss the idea that employers are under no legal obligation whatsoever to bargain with minority unions, CkG, or that workers organized in such a way have no greater legal rights than workers with no organization at all... management is under no legal obligation to even honor such agreements, since they would exist outside the law as described in the NLRA and elsewhere... Which, I suppose, is the entire thrust of your usual anti- union harangue- to convince folks that they should abandon their strength in numbers, and in a democratic majority, for the pie in the sky promises of unrestrained and unregulated capitalism, a return to the Gilded Age of enormous disparity in wealth, power and income, complete with a vast supply of dirt-cheap disposable immigrant workers. It does sound rather familiar...

You also ignore the fact that all unionization efforts start as minority organizing activity, with the clear intent of establishing a majority, and the additional legal rights and protections that such a majority enjoys under the law... Some unions even go so far as to "seed" non-union shops with union sympathizers, an often effective strategy.... Horrifying, ain't it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You apparently dismiss the idea that employers are under no legal obligation whatsoever to bargain with minority unions, CkG, or that workers organized in such a way have no greater legal rights than workers with no organization at all... management is under no legal obligation to even honor such agreements, since they would exist outside the law as described in the NLRA and elsewhere... Which, I suppose, is the entire thrust of your usual anti- union harangue- to convince folks that they should abandon their strength in numbers, and in a democratic majority, for the pie in the sky promises of unrestrained and unregulated capitalism, a return to the Gilded Age of enormous disparity in wealth, power and income, complete with a vast supply of dirt-cheap disposable immigrant workers. It does sound rather familiar...

You also ignore the fact that all unionization efforts start as minority organizing activity, with the clear intent of establishing a majority, and the additional legal rights and protections that such a majority enjoys under the law... Some unions even go so far as to "seed" non-union shops with union sympathizers, an often effective strategy.... Horrifying, ain't it?

Ooops - you didn't seem to read my link. It seems that non-exclusive unions do enjoy the same legal rights as monopolistic ones do.

Here is a portion of what you seem to not have read:

For the most part you have as many legal rights as a minority union as a majority union does -- with the single exception of being certified as the exclusive bargaining agent with the sole authority to negotiate a contract. A minority union has the right to present grievances (though there may not be a formal grievance procedure in place), to engage in concerted activity, to make demands upon the boss, to seek meetings, even to strike (though this isn't a great idea if you don't have majority support).

Now again, that doesn't mean they can't negotiate contracts for their members - it means they can't be the SOLE authority.

Now as to your usual union propaganda spewage - no, I could care less if people CHOOSE to join a union, I just think that EVERY SINGLE employee should have the choice to join or not - which includes being represented by them in any way. The union shouldn't have to support "free-loaders" but unions also shouldn't steal "dues" from those who don't wish to be a part. The unions are more than able to make the "free-loader" issue go away but they don't seem to want to do that because it'd mean giving up their power over workers.
People should have the ultimate choice - not the unions - not the corporation. You can keep trying to spin what I have said into some pie-in-the-sky BS but it's untrue. There needs to be regulations, but also there should be total choice by employees as to who and how they are represented.

Yeah, and there is the whole "seeding" angle which uses the same union propaganda you seem to have bought into to trick people into giving up their right to bargain for themselves and in some cases take that choice away from people who want to keep their own rights.

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice spin, CkG- Bravo!

"For the most part" is an interesting phrase, in reference to workers' rights, but you never seem to address the issue of employers' obligations, which are entirely different under the law wrt majority unionization vs the usual "at will" employment commonly offered in this country. No minority union will ever achieve good faith bargaining from an employer, simply because that employer has entirely too many other options open to them... and no legal obligation to recognize any such entity as anything other than troublemakers... so, yeh, minority unions *can* do all the stuff your link alleges, but that doesn't mean that the management has to listen to them, or do any more than show them the door... which is illegal under a majority union scenario...

"Spewage"? How nice... Fortified your zeal with a few Rush tapes, apparently...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice spin, CkG- Bravo!

"For the most part" is an interesting phrase, in reference to workers' rights, but you never seem to address the issue of employers' obligations, which are entirely different under the law wrt majority unionization vs the usual "at will" employment commonly offered in this country. No minority union will ever achieve good faith bargaining from an employer, simply because that employer has entirely too many other options open to them... and no legal obligation to recognize any such entity as anything other than troublemakers... so, yeh, minority unions *can* do all the stuff your link alleges, but that doesn't mean that the management has to listen to them, or do any more than show them the door... which is illegal under a majority union scenario...

"Spewage"? How nice... Fortified your zeal with a few Rush tapes, apparently...

Uhh...it's illegal to fire them for being part of any union, non-exclusive ones too😉

Those big bad evil corporations you claim are out to get workers are the same big bad corporate thugs that pay your paycheck and provide you with a job. If you don't like the conditions - you are free to leave and find a better situation. You are also free to work with others to change the situation(via unions or whatever) - however when you force others to "join your cause"(using monopolistic union tactics) you become just like those you are fighting against. Again, it's not unions I have a big problem with - it's their tactics and agenda. They've become what they used to fight against. Give workers their individual choice back and I will support the cause of unions - but as long as they use monopolistic tactics - I will not support them.

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

CAD: we live in a democracy where majority often rules.

No one is ever forced to join a union.

I work for a heavily unionized company in Ohio (a non-RTW state) and I am not a member of the union. I chose to be salary. 🙂

And if 30% of the hourly workforce ever decided to sign a petition leading to a secret vote where the majority then decided for the removal of any security clause.....then in effect the shop would be like any in a RTW state.

The workers have that CHOICE.

There are two union shops in the area I'm aware of that are open shops just like in RTW states.....because the workers wanted that way.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson


Red, I am just joking with you.. seriously.. I don't really believe you are a step down for a used car salesman.. 🙂

That's cool, it gave me a reason to get all uppity (like I need one) 😉

 

[tcsenter]

Interesting, tcsenter, that you'd refer to "coercion, intimidation and repressive methods" as employed by unions w/o any links or specific examples - which kinda figures, seeing as how these methods are the tried and true tools of corporate America - from the Pinkertons of a hundred years ago to these guys, today- http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54p.police.html

I'm sorry, I didn't know we were playing Show & Tell. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would extend such an invitation, with literally thousands of cases from which to choose and all:

Union guilty of coercing non-members (APWU Detroit, Michigan, 328 NLRB 37)

Union guilty of denying copies of grievance records (NALC Branch 529 Port Huron, Michigan, 319 NLRB 113)

Union guilty of discriminating against a PTF for his threatening to withdraw from the union (NALC Branch 86 Hartford, Connecticut, 315 NLRB 138)

Union guilty of coercively interrogating employees concerning union and other protected concerted activities (NALC Branch 193 and US Postal Sevice Milpitas, California, 302 NLRB 105)

Union guilty of restraining and coercing employees by refusing to permit them to resign their union membership (NALC Dunwoody, Georgia, 302 NLRB 70)

Union guilty of coercively refusing to answer non-members questions about special delivery routes unless they join the union

Business as usual, protecting the rights of workers...

Victims of Union Abuse Gather in Washington, D.C. to Help Announce Legislation to End Coercive "Card Check" Organizing Schemes

Verbal, physical attacks, intimidations still a fact of life in my local (pro-union site operated and supported by union members)

Labor Day: Death, Destruction and Union Corruption

Union Corruption Index by Union (Organized Labor Accountability Project)

------------

Critics of the international union, which has been threatened with a takeover by the U.S. Justice Department, said the incident show that the intimidation of dissidents is still accepted among the Laborers" hierarchy.

"The Laborers Union traditionally has been an arena for horrible intimidation and physical violence against critics," said Herman Benson, the founder of the Association for Union Democracy, an advocacy group in Brooklyn, N.Y. (this from the head of pro-labor organization)

-------------

from Where Union Power Lies by Walter Williams

Union rhetoric would have us believe their main struggle is against employers. They'd also have us believe that the strike is their main weapon in that struggle. That's nonsense. A union's main weapon in their struggle for higher wages is their power to prevent employers from hiring other workers. Without that power, a strike would be little more than a mass resignation. A good example was the air traffic controllers' strike during the Reagan administration. The strike failed because the union didn't have the power to prevent the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from hiring other workers in their places.

A typical union method to eliminate competition is violence. Most often the victims of union violence are other workers. Here's just a small sampling:

In 1990, the Amalgamated Council of Greyhound Local Unions struck Greyhound. Snipers shot at replacement drivers 52 times. In 1987, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) struck an Anchorage Alaska utility plant. Nonstriking repairmen were routinely attacked and had their tires slashed. One employee had to move after union members threatened to rape and murder his wife. In Ravenswood, West Virginia, the Ravenswood Aluminum Company locked out Steelworkers Local 5668 in November 1990. By April 1991, the company had reported more than 700 incidents of violence directed at replacement workers including, 2 attempted murders, 2 house bombings and shooting, 5 arsons, 29 assaults and 43 death threats. According to an excellent report by David Kendrick, "Freedom From Union Violence," put out by the Washington-based Cato Institute, The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, reported that since 1975 there have been 8,799 incidents of labor union violence with only 258 convictions.

Labor unions prefer not using violence. They prefer to use government regulations to prevent the employment of workers who disagree with a striking union.

-------------

Business as usual at the union hall, protecting workers...

The current wave of anti-unionism was started largely by that Darling of the Conservatives, Ronnie Reagan, when he broke the Air Traffic Controllers Union, and through a well coordinated FUD campaign on a lot of different levels.

Huh?? If the union had all of this public support the day before Reagan put an end to the illegal Air Traffic Controller's strike, giving them every opportunity to cease their criminal activities and save their jobs, wouldn't the public have been angered by Reagan's enforcement of federal law, increasing support for the union?

One would think, but you're saying that, in effect, Reagan's action against illegal strikes found support among the public to the detriment of unions. Ain't that weird?

I do understand how you have rationalized this to yourself, it goes to that little 'secret' I shared with you. Don't change a thing - Keep fighting the good fight, brother!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
CAD: we live in a democracy where majority often rules.

No one is ever forced to join a union.

I work for a heavily unionized company in Ohio (a non-RTW state) and I am not a member of the union. I chose to be salary. 🙂

And if 30% of the hourly workforce ever decided to sign a petition leading to a secret vote where the majority then decided for the removal of any security clause.....then in effect the shop would be like any in a RTW state.

The workers have that CHOICE.

There are two union shops in the area I'm aware of that are open shops just like in RTW states.....because the workers wanted that way.

"forced" if they want to keep their job - yes.
My solution is to give everyone a free choice of joining or not joining a union. If a union wants to move into a shop - fine, but let those who don't want to join have the that freedom.
Workers currently do NOT have a choice whether or not to join a union if a union chooses the monopolistic version of representation. Their choice is changed to being union or being jobless. That isn't "choice" IMO.

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

Jeez, tcsenter, you must have missed that the other day- pretty much indicative of how well you pay attention to what others might have to say, apparently. Why post selected rulings from the NLRB? Pretty obvious, actually, as you (or some site you frequent) has gone to the trouble to select only those that put Unions in a bad light... Here's a link to the entire directory-

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/decisions/default.asp

Browsing thru it, what you'll find is that there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the fence, particularly on the local level. And, yeh, the Laborers and the Postal Unions are among the worst offenders.

The Cato Institute reference is interesting, in the sense that they never said what % of violence was initiated by hired goons like Vance.... But rather intimate that it's all on the other side... In the old days, Unions brought in their own security teams, too, now prohibited by law from doing so, iirc... Acts of violence by a few hotheads in no way are endorsed by union leadership- to even suggest the possibility as an alternative could easily lead to a stiff prison term...

The Union corruption reference is interesting, in a twisted sort of way. Not that a similar compilation of management misdeeds wouldn't run to the same length, but that it's amazing just how well financed these guys really are, to pay people to track all that down, keep it on the web, keep it updated... I don't suppose that money comes from all the little guys who opt-out of a portion of union dues... probably not...

Reagan didn't have public support for his actions against the ATC guys, more like apathy, but he did have the law on his side, in the sense that they had foolishly signed a no-strike contract. Don't see too many of those, any more...

And, of course, Unions can't make much headway with workers whose employers treat them well, paying solid wages benefits, retirement plans, etc... workers who have honest recourse for safety and other issues... too bad there isn't more of that going around...

 

[tcsenter]

Jeez, tcsenter, you must have missed that the other day - pretty much indicative of how well you pay attention to what others might have to say, apparently.

Missed what the other day...?

Why post selected rulings from the NLRB?

Don't ask me, ask yourself why you post only select information that favors your position. Others [me] are just following the example you set.

Pretty obvious, actually, as you (or some site you frequent) has gone to the trouble to select only those that put Unions in a bad light... Here's a link to the entire directory -

lol! The actual site from which I obtained that information is run by members of the Postal Union who want to expose the routine criminal and unethical activities of their union. They also maintain a number of NLRB rulings favorable to the Postal union.

Acts of violence by a few hotheads in no way are endorsed by union leadership- to even suggest the possibility as an alternative could easily lead to a stiff prison term...

The Union corruption reference is interesting, in a twisted sort of way. Not that a similar compilation of management misdeeds wouldn't run to the same length, but that it's amazing just how well financed these guys really are, to pay people to track all that down, keep it on the web, keep it updated... I don't suppose that money comes from all the little guys who opt-out of a portion of union dues... probably not...

Good show, my boy! Voluminous evidence of union corruption is "interesting", not because it shows just how violent and corrupt (both morally and legally) unions are, but because someone has the nerve, the audacity!, to monitor and speak out against it. lol!

You keep fighting the good fight, brother!