Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Read It, CkG? I'll do better, I'lll post it-
Sec. 9 [§ 159.] (a) [Exclusive representatives; employees' adjustment of grievances directly with employer] Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: Provided, That any individual employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted, without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective-bargaining contract or agreement then in effect: Provided further, That the bargaining representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.
(b) [Determination of bargaining unit by Board] The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act [subchapter], the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof: Provided, That the Board shall not (1) decide that any unit is appropriate for such purposes if such unit includes both professional employees and employees who are not professional employees unless a majority of such professional employees vote for inclusion in such unit; or (2) decide that any craft unit is inappropriate for such purposes on the ground that a different unit has been established by a prior Board determination, unless a majority of the employees in the proposed craft unit votes against separate representation or (3) decide that any unit is appropriate for such purposes if it includes, together with other employees, any individual employed as a guard to enforce against employees and other persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer's premises; but no labor organization shall be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards.
Where does it say that the Union shall decide who is the bargaining unit? It doesn't- it says the Board (the NLRB) shall decide.
Where does it say that the Union can choose to represent only union members? It doesn't- it says that the union must represent all employees in the bargaining unit as designated by the Board.
Your contentions as to what the law allows are pure FUD and disinformation, clearly driven by anti-union ideology rather than through any practical experience in such matters. If you want to change the law, and argue for that, fine, have at it, but your ongoing contentions that "day is night", "war is peace" and "slavery is freedom" are best left to folks more persuasive, guys like Dick Cheney...
Nor have I ever referred to fee-objectors as "freeloaders"- I've pointed out, repeatedly, that the law requires them to pay administrative costs for the privilege of union representation, and that they're often the first to scream bloody murder if they think they're not getting it... I see them as self-centered and short-sighted, often lacking in any semblance of loyalty or self-examination, part of the "Me!Me!Me!" phenomenon made so prevalent by 30 years of uber-right propaganda visited upon us all by the so-called "Liberal Media"... Among my coworkers, there are a few who opted-out when the prospect of being forced to strike loomed large, but they're now the ones complaining the loudest about how we got screwed on the last contract- undercut the Union's bargaining position, then complain about the results achieved because of that weakness...
None of which has much to do with the blatant disinformation in your opening post. Privacy? Put your name on that Union vote petition, see what kind of privacy you've really got- a helluva lot less than in a cardcheck scenario, where the union organizers can protect the identities of their sympathizers until they've achieved the required majority, and immediately assert collective bargaining rights.... All kinds of stuff can happen between the filing of that petition and an actual vote, which management can often stall for years. By the time the vote actually happens, all the union sympathizers have been squeezed out, silenced, or fired, for one "legitimate" reason or another.... and everybody else is scared shitless...
