does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker's true preference about whether to join a union? a private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named employee free choice act (efca, h.r. 800) its highest legislative priority.
recently, unions have switched the focus of their organizing operations from private balloting to publicly signed cards. these so-called card-check campaigns make it much easier for unions to organize workers, but most companies strongly resist the idea of denying their employees a vote. unions now want the government to take away workers' right to vote and certify unions after only a card-check campaign. the employee free choice act would do this and more.
The idea that EFCA does away with secret ballots is anti-union propaganda, anyway -- EFCA does not do this; it just makes whether to use secret ballot or simply sign cards the choice of the workers involved, not management.
"So there you have it: the Wall Street Journal editorial board says that the Employee Free Choice Act won't eliminate secret ballots. Those who continue to try and contend that it does are trying to mislead the public and contradicting what the bill's opponents know is true.
Not that secret ballots are sacrosanct for opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act when it serves their own interests. In fact, the Republican Party bylaws forbid secret ballot votes on most matters before the party's national committee, notes Greg Sargent of The Plum Line blog."
The idea that EFCA does away with secret ballots is anti-union propaganda, anyway -- EFCA does not do this; it just makes whether to use secret ballot or simply sign cards the choice of the workers involved, not management.
You can't seriously believe that this protects workers who desire to vote in private.
It simply moves the undue pressure to the vote on whether or not to have a secret ballot, rather than the actual election itself. Workers are still forced to make a public statement of their beliefs, on the issue of the ballot rather than the issue of the election itself. That still place them under the intimidating, watchful and possibly threatening eyes and influence of union leaders, employers, fellow employees and the general public. It does not protect their rights.
The process of voting on whether or not to have a secret ballot is silly and intended to mislead the naive and uninformed into believing that their rights are being protected. Just have the secret ballot. If anyone wishes to disclose hisher vote, s/he is perfectly free to do so. When I vote at my local precinct for mayor, President and dog catcher, I am free to leave my booth open and invite everyone present to observe my vote. I am free to announce my vote to anyone and everyone. If I wish to disclose my vote, I don't need an open voting process to do so.
No. I'm not in favor of unions or union elections. I'm also not in favor of making it any easier for unions to unionize a facility either.
Thank you for your clarity on this ( think it also clarifies , your view upon democracy ) .
" Does this mean you are in favor of union elections? " I do , if you mean by this do I support votes of nurses in a facility , supervised by the NLRB , on the question of whether that facility should be unionized or not .
The idea that EFCA does away with secret ballots is anti-union propaganda, anyway -- EFCA does not do this; it just makes whether to use secret ballot or simply sign cards the choice of the workers involved, not management.
"So there you have it: the Wall Street Journal editorial board says that the Employee Free Choice Act won't eliminate secret ballots. Those who continue to try and contend that it does are trying to mislead the public and contradicting what the bill's opponents know is true.
Not that secret ballots are sacrosanct for opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act when it serves their own interests. In fact, the Republican Party bylaws forbid secret ballot votes on most matters before the party's national committee, notes Greg Sargent of The Plum Line blog."
the bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the national labor relations act but in practice makes it a dead letter. the bill allows a union to automatically organize a worksite if more than 50% of workers simply sign an authorization card, so pressure for employees to sign in public view would be enormous. the legislation also imposes a contract through binding arbitration if labor and management reach a stalemate. my highlighting , for the sake of accuracy i have included the whole relevant paragraph .
so it is inaccurate to try to portray this as afl-cio propoganda .
what is it? two virtually identical bills that were introduced in the united states house of representatives and united states senate on march 10, 2009.
although the bill passed the house of representatives on march 1, 2007, it later was stalled in the u.s. senate.
what are its three primary provisions?
first, no-vote unionization:
the employee free choice act outlaws secret-ballot elections on the question of unionization if a majority of employees sign union authorization cards (or other form of "authorizations" assigning a union as their "collective bargaining representative").
here is the text of hr 1409 (the so-called employee free choice act) regarding banning secret-ballot elections under majority "card-check":
"notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the board shall investigate the petition. if the board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)." [emphasis added.]
[second, government-imposed terms and conditions of a contract:
following the unionization of employees, the employer and union have 10 days to meet and 90 days to negotiate. if an agreement cannot be reached within 90 days, the parties can go into mediation for 30 days. if no agreement is reached after 30 days of mediation, a government-imposed arbitration panel will force the parties into a binding agreement. this forced agreement shall be binding on the employees, the employer and the union for a period of two years.
third, punitive fines (up to $20,000) per unfair labor practice.
immediate gains in union membership, swelling union coffers immensely
chilling effect on employer speech
closure of small companies under the burden of unionization, resulting in layoffs of workers (view article on efca's killing of american jobs here).
capital flight in the form of more outsourcing of jobs, as larger companies take flight from the onerous burdens of unionization.
more automation in those industries that cannot be outsourced resulting in fewer jobs
following the expiration of government-imposed two-year contracts, for those companies that can survive, there is likely to be a sharp increase in labor strife (i.e., union strikes and employer lockouts).
potential for one-party rule in state and national politics, as unions will be able to moblize millions of dollars and tens of thousands of members to polls
This is just more propaganda form the AFL CIO.....
It is "propaganda" quoting the Wall Street Journal, which is nothing if not vigorously conservative/right-wing, so I guess the two sets of propaganda balance each other out ...
what is it? two virtually identical bills that were introduced in the united states house of representatives and united states senate on march 10, 2009.
although the bill passed the house of representatives on march 1, 2007, it later was stalled in the u.s. senate.
what are its three primary provisions?
first, no-vote unionization:
the employee free choice act outlaws secret-ballot elections on the question of unionization if a majority of employees sign union authorization cards (or other form of "authorizations" assigning a union as their "collective bargaining representative").
here is the text of hr 1409 (the so-called employee free choice act) regarding banning secret-ballot elections under majority "card-check":
"notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the board shall investigate the petition. if the board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)." [emphasis added.] this simply says that the shall not direct an election , because the board will have already crtified a majority is in favor of unionization . admittedly it's a fine legal point , but they have not outlawed secret ballots . [
second, government-imposed terms and conditions of a contract:
following the unionization of employees, the employer and union have 10 days to meet and 90 days to negotiate. if an agreement cannot be reached within 90 days, the parties can go into mediation for 30 days. if no agreement is reached after 30 days of mediation, a government-imposed arbitration panel will force the parties into a binding agreement. this forced agreement shall be binding on the employees, the employer and the union for a period of two years.
third, punitive fines (up to $20,000) per unfair labor practice.
immediate gains in union membership, swelling union coffers immensely
chilling effect on employer speech
closure of small companies under the burden of unionization, resulting in layoffs of workers (view article on efca's killing of american jobs here).
capital flight in the form of more outsourcing of jobs, as larger companies take flight from the onerous burdens of unionization.
more automation in those industries that cannot be outsourced resulting in fewer jobs
following the expiration of government-imposed two-year contracts, for those companies that can survive, there is likely to be a sharp increase in labor strife (i.e., union strikes and employer lockouts).
potential for one-party rule in state and national politics, as unions will be able to moblize millions of dollars and tens of thousands of members to polls
If it quacks and walks like a duck................
Unless the law says otherwise ! .
In this case you are trying to use the arguement that the law is banning elections , it doesn't . The law leaves intact the option of an election , but at the decision of the union , not management . Obviously if the union has met a requirement that enables it to establish a bargaining unit , it will take that option , as would any of us ( ie. take what we can get now , rather than jump through an extra hoop that is optional )
It's good to know that multiple anit-union groups are bankrolling trying to defeat this option. Unions shouldn't be given more free reign over nurses careers, and they shouldn't be able to formally unionize a facility without an ACTUAL election and not just some signed card.
I think this law has a minimal chance of passing , but I wish something could be done to empower employees to express their opinions , through a vote , without undue pressure , particularly from management ( I say this because although some may say union sympathiser apply pressure , they do not have the pressure employers can apply ie. real or implied loss of employment , if you support the union ) .
Also that if a union is voted in , the sides should formulate the first contract within a reasonable time , or face binding arbitration imposing a contract .Binding arbitration has the advantage ,that if your demands are unreasonable the arbitrator will most likely decide against you , so both parties have pressure upon them to keep their demands reasonable .
.
elkpark
14,633 Posts
The idea that EFCA does away with secret ballots is anti-union propaganda, anyway -- EFCA does not do this; it just makes whether to use secret ballot or simply sign cards the choice of the workers involved, not management.
"So there you have it: the Wall Street Journal editorial board says that the Employee Free Choice Act won't eliminate secret ballots. Those who continue to try and contend that it does are trying to mislead the public and contradicting what the bill's opponents know is true.
Not that secret ballots are sacrosanct for opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act when it serves their own interests. In fact, the Republican Party bylaws forbid secret ballot votes on most matters before the party's national committee, notes Greg Sargent of The Plum Line blog."
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/03/20/wsj-employee-free-choice-does-not-eliminate-secret-ballots/