Republicans move to protect the secret ballot.

[billc]

For union members out there, what do you think of the attempts by the democrats and unions to get rid of the secret ballot for union activity? Does that even come close to making any sense at all?

Here is an article that shows that the republicans are trying to protect the right of union members to vote without intimidation.

http://biggovernment.com/laborunionreport/2011/01/28/gop-introduces-secret-ballot-protection-act/

For the last five years, unions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taken from their members’ dues, to pass a bill that effectively eliminates employees’ right to a secret-ballot election on the question of unionization. Through the delusionally-dubbed Employee Free Choice Act’s ’card check’ provision, unions have sought to mandate that employees would automatically become unionized once a union secured 50% + 1 of employees’ signatures on authorization cards (or other form). However, after the Employee Free ANTI Choice Act passed the House in 2007 (it was later stalled in the Senate), more people began to take notice of the union threat to their right to choose (or not choose) unionization in the workplace.​

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm anti union, will never again work in a union shop, and actively discourage people from joining them. I see little good today, and little good in the past from them. So anything done to protect workers rights to privacy, to self-determination, to not be forced into giving up self control to corrupt and self serving groups, is good to me.

 

[seasoned]

I was in a union in the late 60s through the 70s, 21 years altogether. Part of the problem then were wages. Not that we weren't getting a fair wage, but the fact that there was no consideration for productivity. Lazy or nonproductive workers were paid the same as people busting their butts. So, what do you think the outcome would be in that situation. You decide, nonproductive suddenly step up to the plate, or the ones busting their butts saying "what the h***. Please don't take offense, but if the off shore shoe fits, wear it. Wait, that is a whole new problem. Sorry if I side tracked a bit, call it a "rant".

 

[billc]

Seasoned, I have no problem with getting off track. I think of my posts as sitting around hashing out things, and as conversations with people actually present usually do, the topics sometimes wander. No big deal to me. thanks for the thoughts.

 

[billc]

It is interesting to me that the story is NOT "Democrats move to protect the secret Ballot."

 

[elder999]

For union members out there, what do you think of the attempts by the democrats and unions to get rid of the secret ballot for union activity? Does that even come close to making any sense at all?

As a former shop steward and union delegate, I have to say that it's much ado about nothing.

"Card check" is nothing new; it's been part of the authorization and certification process since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. Under the proposed law, rather than having a "secret ballot election" after the card-check (performed by the NLRB and never made public) if more than 50% of employees signed cards the union is automatically formed. Of course, employees cannot be obligated to join the union....technically.

However, I think most current union members would choose to keep the election process as it currently is.

 

[Big Don]

It is interesting to me that the story is NOT "Democrats move to protect the secret Ballot."

hahahaha

 

[ballen0351]

Whats the reason for not having the secret ballot?

 

[Big Don]

Whats the reason for not having the secret ballot?

So the unions will know who to lean on.

 

[ballen0351]

So the unions will know who to lean on.

I know the real reason Im asking what the political reason for it is.

 

[elder999]

So the unions will know who to lean on.

This is specious in extreme.Once the authorization cards are turned in, they already know who didn't sign them-it's only after they're turned in, and in any number greater than 50% (50%+1) that the apparently sacred 'secret ballot election" takes place. All the bill does is eliminate the completely unecessary step of the "secret ballot election."

"Completely unecessary" since more than 50% have already authorized the union in order for it to take place, and would presumably vote the same way.

You can read the basics about card-checks here. The Republicans aren't defending the secret ballot-they're defending an impediment to organizing that favors corporations-it's just not necessary.

The current method for workers to form a union in a particular workplace in the United States is a sign-up then an election process. In that, a petition or an authorization card with the signatures of at least 30% of the employees requesting a union is submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who then verifies and orders a secret ballot election. Two exceptions exist. If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely.
Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), if the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, the secret ballot election is bypassed and a union is automatically formed. Introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2005 and reintroduced in 2007[1] and 2009[2], the EFCA provides that the NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if a majority of employees have authorized that representation via majority sign-up (card check), without requiring a secret ballot election.[3] Under The EFCA, if over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would still order a secret ballot election for union representation.

No reason to keep it, no real reason to do away with it: if it does take place, it's a foregone conclusion, since the workforce has already authorized it in numbers that support the union.

 

[ballen0351]

This is specious in extreme.Once the authorization cards are turned in, they already know who didn't sign them-it's only after they're turned in, and in any number greater than 50% (50%+1) that the apparently sacred 'secret ballot election" takes place. All the bill does is eliminate the completely unecessary step of the "secret ballot election."

"Completely unecessary" since more than 50% have already authorized the union in order for it to take place, and would presumably vote the same way.

You can read the basics about card-checks here. The Republicans aren't defending the secret ballot-they're defending an impediment to organizing that favors corporations-it's just not necessary.



No reason to keep it, no real reason to do away with it: if it does take place, it's a foregone conclusion, since the workforce has already authorized it in numbers that support the union.

If its no big deal then why are the unions pushing for it to be removed?

 

[elder999]

If its no big deal then why are the unions pushing for it to be removed?

Well, as a former shop steward and union delegate, I can say that sometimes-in all seriousness, and only a little facetiously-sometimes, you push for something just because it'll piss management off. :lol:

In this case, though, if you reverse the argument, and understand that-with the authorization cards (which basically are from individual workers authorizing the union to take dues from their pay and represent them in collective bargaining) coming in at greater than 50%. the workforce has, basically, already voted for union representation-then one realizes that the delay represented by the employer's calling for a secret ballot, and setting the date for that ballot (and that is the way the law reads: the employer calls for or waives the election, which is generally superfluous at this point) mean that the employer has time to "work" on the workforce-individually and as a group, and, through intimidation, coercion, or simple campaigning-try to effcet the outcome of the election, and keep the union out of their workplace.

This is the only reason for the election. It has always been the only reason for the election-though the employer's tactics generally don't work if the employhees want a union to represent them. Conversely, though, in workplaces where there is a good partnership between the workforce and management, and the workers are satisfied with their compensation, there doesn't have to be a union, and the workforce rejects attempts at organization.

The unions are pushing this to make organizing places like Walmart-which has 2.1 million employees-easier.....

 

[Makalakumu]

If the government isn't involved, I have no problem with unions. If people want to join, fine. If not, that's fine as well. Things would probably work better with unions and employers if there was no outside interference.

 

[billc]

They are spending an awful lot of money for something that isn't really all that important. It makes me think there is something more here than we are being led to believe.

 

[elder999]

They are spending an awful lot of money for something that isn't really all that important. It makes me think there is something more here than we are being led to believe.

Well, yeah. There's more to the law than just "card-checks." That was just what the corporations, employers and Republicans seized on because if they say "they want to do away with secret ballots" it sounds un-American, and you'll make sure your congressman is someone who'll vote down on the Employee Free Choice Act, which , in addition to making the authorization process for unionization more efficient by eliminating the wholly and completely superfluous step of an employer mandated secret ballot election, shortens the time required for collective bargaining between the employer and newly authorized union, and increases penalties for employers who discriminate against workers for being involved in a union

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just as an aside, I wonder how many of the Top 100 Best places to work for are union shops.

 

[Big Don]

Just as an aside, I wonder how many of the Top 100 Best places to work for are union shops.

Helpful link

 

[Big Don]

Calling this the Employee Free Choice Act proves Limbaugh's point, if you named the bill correctly, you could legalize rape.

 

[elder999]

Calling this the Employee Free Choice Act proves Limbaugh's point, if you named the bill correctly, you could legalize rape.

It was Bush's point first.

Who could possibly vote against the USA PATRIOT Act?...besides Dennis Kucinich, anyway.....:lfao: (Acttually, something like 60 representatives voted against it in 2001, and only one Senator, Russ Feingold.....another one they didn't bother reading, too.)