|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 03/27/2009 : 01:53:11
|
|
What are the arguments for doing away with secret ballots for votes to unionize? I am not sure I have heard a single good argument for this. It seems to make it easier for both employers and pro-union workers to attempt to coerce workers to vote their way.
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 02:38:14 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to SFN, Machi4velli!Originally posted by Machi4velli
What are the arguments for doing away with secret ballots for votes to unionize? I am not sure I have heard a single good argument for this. It seems to make it easier for both employers and pro-union workers to attempt to coerce workers to vote their way.
|
According to Wikipedia: In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his colleagues. Once 30% of the work force has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization. In practice, the results of the card check are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of employees have signed the cards to help ensure winning the election. If the majority of votes favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining.
If enacted, EFCA would require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards; however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one. The EFCA would, according to Christopher Beam, "allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election." |
So, whether or not the law passes, any drive to certify a union to represent a company's employees begins with employees signing a card, or declining to do so.
The Employee Free Choice Act would streamline the process. Whenever a majority of the employess have signed union cards, the company would no longer have the option of then demanding a ballot election. A secret ballot would then be done if a mere 30% or more of the employees wanted it. In other words, less than a third of the employees can still force the extra step of a ballot. If a majority of employees have signed cards, and less than 30% are for a secret ballot, it's very unlikely that the extra time and energy required would have any change in the outcome.
The charges that the new law would open up potential "intimidation" during the card-signing are pretty much a strawman, since the card-signing process takes place already. In fact, the new law would add additional penalties for intimidation by either side.
I can't see any downside for employees in the new law. And it certainly speeds up the process.
I can see why employers and the GOP want to stop the new legislation. If they can't stop them, they would prefer to slow down any and all union organizing efforts.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/27/2009 02:43:39 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 15:01:59 [Permalink]
|
Thanks HalfMooner, seems like a good forum. :)
Isn't there a downside for employees who do not want to unionize? Unionizing is not always in every employee's best interest. For example, young employees who are particularly good at their job may be compensated less if salary is based on performance pre-union if unions favor seniority as the way to decide salary (which is a common position for many unions -- teachers, coalminers, autoworkers, etc).
With that being said, anti-union employees may be alienated or otherwise mistreated by pro-union employees if everyone knows they voted against it. People act differently if they know others are watching and know their actions may have unfair consequences. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 15:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Thanks HalfMooner, seems like a good forum. :)
Isn't there a downside for employees who do not want to unionize? Unionizing is not always in every employee's best interest. For example, young employees who are particularly good at their job may be compensated less if salary is based on performance pre-union if unions favor seniority as the way to decide salary (which is a common position for many unions -- teachers, coalminers, autoworkers, etc).
With that being said, anti-union employees may be alienated or otherwise mistreated by pro-union employees if everyone knows they voted against it. People act differently if they know others are watching and know their actions may have unfair consequences.
|
Certainly peoples' experiences will vary, according to their attitudes toward unions, and just how well their local officials represent them. But the issue here is about how to go about the certification for the representation of a union supported by a majority of employees.
Represented employees have a good deal going for them, not least in the area of being represented in firings. As a former Union Steward, I was able to prevent several arbitrary firings in which the motives basically amounted to low-level supervisors simply not liking the employees. Pay and benefits aren't to be scoffed at, either. I feel that collective bargaining (like regulatory oversight) is a vital part of a functioning capitalist system. Your mileage may vary.
But arguments for or against unions are not the issue here. That's for employees to freely decide. The question here is merely how a majority can go about either getting represented, or rejecting that representation.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 16:03:18 [Permalink]
|
| If people act differently than they feel they should when they know they are being watched, does public balloting not take away their ability to freely decide? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2009 : 17:04:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
If people act differently than they feel they should when they know they are being watched, does public balloting not take away their ability to freely decide? |
Again, a mere 30% of employees can force a secret ballot. With the new legislation, a union could only be certified if more than 50% of employees sign cards in its support, and there are less than 30% who want a secret ballot. I can't imagine any kind of pressure upon employees to sign or not sign that wouldn't already be happening under existing law during the card-signing process.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/27/2009 17:05:48 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2009 : 15:52:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| I can't imagine any kind of pressure upon employees to sign or not sign that wouldn't already be happening under existing law during the card-signing process. |
I suppose, hypothetically, a union member can sign a card to publicly appear pro-union, and then vote against such a union in private when they get 50%. If this happens enough, you can have a case where 50% or more sign cards but the vote doesn't go through.
Those were some nice posts HalfMooner.
|
Thanks, Ricky. When I considered making my first reply, I started with what was frankly a strongly pro-union experience and bias, but with little particular knowledge of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act.
I had to look up information from a fairly unbiased source, to help determine if and how I might support the legislation. So I ruminated upon it a bit, and posted both Wiki's main explanation and my conclusions.
The hypothetical you mention is surely possible, and probably has happened from time to time. That oddity is already possible under the existing law, and under the EFCA only if 30% of the employees force a secret ballot.
I think the employers who oppose the new law are mainly concerned to keep the cumbersome and slow process. Every day without a union makes them happy, and they want to maintain delays.
BTW, with the defection of Arlen Spector as a supporter, it looks as though the anti-union forces will be able to use a Senate filibuster threat to kill the bill.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/28/2009 15:55:15 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2009 : 01:01:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| I can't imagine any kind of pressure upon employees to sign or not sign that wouldn't already be happening under existing law during the card-signing process. |
I suppose, hypothetically, a union member can sign a card to publicly appear pro-union, and then vote against such a union in private when they get 50%. If this happens enough, you can have a case where 50% or more sign cards but the vote doesn't go through.
Those were some nice posts HalfMooner.
|
I have heard of cases of this happening under current law. The pro-union employees have gotten 50% to sign cards (all public, so likely with some pressure to voters) only to have the secret vote to unionize not gain a majority.
This is not really surprising to me, I could easily see employees signing cards just to avoid rocking the boat and doing what they feel they should with secret ballots. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
WarfRat
New Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2009 : 13:52:14 [Permalink]
|
Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose that there is 55%percent who sign up for union and it is established. Would the 45% be compelled to join and/or pay dues because they are in a "union shop"?
I've been in that situation. My choices were join or leave. I couldn't just work there. By being employed there (Filene's), I was automatically enrolled in the union and had $20 bucks taken out of my paycheck. When you make $7 per hour at part time that sucks. The union was ridiculous even the members thought so.
Would the 45% be able to work without paying dues? They would of course would not be able to reap the benefits of Union negotiation.
Conversely, if the union members at the site decide to disband, could same >50% provision within the act be applied. e.g. if more than 50% of the union decides to disband, it is de-certified. |
"I believe...that one benefits the workers...so much more by forcing through reforms which alleviate and strengthen their position, than by saying that only a revolution can help them." |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 08:45:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by WarfRat
Let's take a hypothetical. Suppose that there is 55%percent who sign up for union and it is established. Would the 45% be compelled to join and/or pay dues because they are in a "union shop"? |
Yeah, sure, but so what?
Nobody ever said democracy was perfect and fair to everyone. In every election the losers are compelled to live with (and pay for) the results that they don't support. That's true in every election from national elections to local club meetings.
Originally posted by WarfRat
I've been in that situation. My choices were join or leave. I couldn't just work there. By being employed there (Filene's), I was automatically enrolled in the union and had $20 bucks taken out of my paycheck. When you make $7 per hour at part time that sucks. The union was ridiculous even the members thought so. |
I agree that for someone who works part time at only $7 an hour, a $20 union due is a lot, though you didn't say if that paycheck is weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or what.
That's not a good argument against unions. That's a single example of where that union at that time made a rule that maybe wasn't the best rule possible. Reasonable alternatives might have been for that union to charge dues based on overall pay so that low wage part-time employees wouldn't have been charged so much.
At the same time, it's entirely possible that without the union representation that the hourly wage may have been significantly less than $7 an hour.
Unions are like any other power structure. They're not inherently good nor bad, that depends on how they operate and what they accomplish. |
|
|
|
WarfRat
New Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 12:02:45 [Permalink]
|
From what you stated, it would make the minority to live at the whim of the majority. Mob rule. That's not what the founders wanted.
The Paycheck was weekly. The place is a Union shop or an "agency shop". By being employed you are automatically enrolled in the union. Whether you want to or not. There was no choice at all in that matter. Also there was no guarantee that you would not lose your employment. It was retail. The dues went to other unions.
Workers should have the right to unionize but they should also have the same right to de-unionize when it no longer serves its purpose.
In the 70's the Franklin MA Teachers Strike was caused by the union bosses wanted to "make a statement" to the local governments. The results backfired as some teachers crossed the line and refused to strike.
Unions need regulation and reform.
|
"I believe...that one benefits the workers...so much more by forcing through reforms which alleviate and strengthen their position, than by saying that only a revolution can help them." |
|
|
|
Grayven
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 15:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Current history points to large companies needing reform far more than unions do. It was not a union of AIG execs that put us into our current dire straights. While it may be true that unions need reform, other parts of our economy are in far greater need of it.
Unions, despite the claptrap you've heard, are essentially capitalists endeavors. People join unions to increase their bargaining power (a capitalist thing). The reason you join a union, when you are working for a large organization, is to increase the power of your, and your co-unionists, voice. One persons voice, versus a multibillion dollar companies, is squat. 20,000 is significant. Small people join into unions so that they can compete, and have a voice that must be heard. This is not socialism, this is smart capitalism. The union members want a share of the profits. They combine to get a better share.
The large companies have spent considerable money to make sure that unionization is discouraged. They have, essentially, used socialist tactics. They've spent a lot of cash to make sure they don't have to play with an organized opponent. They'll take on several thousand tiny opponents instead. (Fair, right?)
So, while we have very low unionization rates, we have large companies. All this is very unfair to the working people, but very profitable in the short run to the large companies.
An equal playing feild would be one eqully good for employees and for companies. We don't have this. Regular people can fail, but not the big companies.
Im for whatever makes it easier for small people to band their tiny bit of power together. Capitalism and markets don't work when you give one side an advantage.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 21:02:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by WarfRat
From what you stated, it would make the minority to live at the whim of the majority. Mob rule. That's not what the founders wanted. |
The founders of what? We're not talking about governments, we're talking about private organizations formed for the purpose of collective bargaining. What the founders of the United States Government felt was necessary to protect citizens from an abuse of power from their government doesn't necessarily apply to the much smaller potential for abuse from a person's own union.
Originally posted by WarfRat
The Paycheck was weekly. The place is a Union shop or an "agency shop". By being employed you are automatically enrolled in the union. Whether you want to or not. There was no choice at all in that matter. Also there was no guarantee that you would not lose your employment. It was retail. The dues went to other unions. |
The rules were made before you came along. That doesn't make them unjust, it only makes them harder to change if you feel they need to be changed.
You still have plenty of choice available. Your choices include, but are not limited to; 1) Choosing another line of work. 2) Choosing the same line of work, but at a different store, or
3) Choosing to try to change the rule you don't like from within the system.
Originally posted by WarfRat
Workers should have the right to unionize but they should also have the same right to de-unionize when it no longer serves its purpose. |
That would fall under option #3. I'm sure if you had been successful in getting a majority to agree with you and disbanding the union and then voting on it, you could have changed things more to your liking. You probably also would have begun a promising career in management.
Originally posted by WarfRat
In the 70's the Franklin MA Teachers Strike was caused by the union bosses wanted to "make a statement" to the local governments. The results backfired as some teachers crossed the line and refused to strike. |
And?
Organizing a union is about changing power dynamics in favor of labor. There is nothing inherently good or bad about this, good or bad must be judged based on results. That you disagree with a particular union action isn't evidence that unions in general are bad, only that on this one occasion a union acted in a way you disagree with.
You offer what is called anecdotal evidence. Your evidence may well be true, but it doesn't follow that the result is typical. In other words, just because you know of one example where a union went on strike just to make a statement doesn't mean it's typical of unions to do so. In fact, it's not because generally unions don't want to create unnecessary hardship for its members.
Originally posted by WarfRat
Unions need regulation and reform. |
Based on your single anecdote from thirty years ago? You haven't made a very strong case for it.
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2009 : 19:26:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by WarfRat
From what you stated, it would make the minority to live at the whim of the majority. Mob rule. That's not what the founders wanted. |
The founders of what? We're not talking about governments, we're talking about private organizations formed for the purpose of collective bargaining. What the founders of the United States Government felt was necessary to protect citizens from an abuse of power from their government doesn't necessarily apply to the much smaller potential for abuse from a person's own union. |
The fact that there is a majority in agreement is not, in itself, enough to justify much. The American government is not entirely democratic. We have various mechanisms to minimize the tyranny of the majority (representative democracy, electoral college to avoid the domination of small states by the interests of large states, proportional representation for states in the House of Representatives tempered by equal representation in the Senate, limited power for Congress, independent judiciary, the Bill of Rights and other laws to protect certain rights from laws that could endanger them).
Many writings by the founders of our government and other political theorists indicate mechanisms designed to protect minority opinions and interests. The idea comes up in Plato, Mill, Condorcet, and is quite prevalent in the Federalist Papers (and it probably in many more books I have not read).
This is one of the significant differences (IMO) between the American government and many of the "purer" democracies of history (Athens, Rome at times, Revolutionary France). We can debate the necessity of mechanisms to temper democracy if you like, but I am assuming we agree that some is necessary even if we disagree on what they should be (if you disagree, that would be an interesting discussion too).
The protection of people from abuse does not stop with the government. We have laws to require employers, universities, and all sorts of establishments from abusing citizens. There are protections for women, minorities, and disabled persons from discriminatory hiring and admission practices, laws against child labor, minimum wage laws, and even protection for children from their own abusive or neglectful parents.
Granted, these are protections are all against some kind of authority (though I am not sure unions cannot be considered authority over workers, particularly those with minority interests), but we also have requirements for restaurants and stores to be accessible for disabled persons, allow all races in their establishments, and, increasingly, ban smoking. These are all private organizations and none of them hold any real power over citizens. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Secret ballots for unionizing?
