• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Employee Free Choice Act (Death by a thousand sources warning)

Tsukasa Buddha said:
The fact is that employees get to choose how to set up their union
Click to expand...

The fact is that this will be done in many cases without a secret ballot, allowing for union intimidation.

It hardly stands as abolishment of the secret ballot.
Click to expand...

You will note I did not say "abolishment". But if the union can intimidate enough people to get above the 50% mark, then no secret ballot will occur, so unionization can happen even in cases where less than 50% of employees would vote for a union if their ballots were secret.

I don't think you've read anything. The problem with the current law is that the penalties are so weak it costs less for an employer to fire union "thugs" than it is to allow a union formation. The solution is to increase the penalties so that violating the law isn't just part of standard business procedures.
Click to expand...

If all the EFCA did was increase penalties on existing laws, we wouldn't be having this conversation. By your own admission (in bold), the logical remedy for what you see as the current problem is something other than the EFCA.
 
Ziggurat said:
The fact is that this will be done in many cases without a secret ballot, allowing for union intimidation.
Click to expand...

And greatly, greatly decreasing management intimidation. Also, any evidence into how much union intimidation will be going on? My source said 4-5% felt intimidated by unions, but it didn't give the secret ballot intimidation. While the numbers were greatly higher for management intimidation even after being halved from the number during the secret ballot drives.

You will note I did not say "abolishment". But if the union can intimidate enough people to get above the 50% mark, then no secret ballot will occur, so unionization can happen even in cases where less than 50% of employees would vote for a union if their ballots were secret.
Click to expand...

Again, where is your evidence? I gave 5% union, 23% management in card check intimidation. Management still wins out, so your point is still moot.

If all the EFCA did was increase penalties on existing laws, we wouldn't be having this conversation. By your own admission (in bold), the logical remedy for what you see as the current problem is something other than the EFCA.
Click to expand...

No, that was in response to you saying if current laws are being enforced we wouldn't need to add more laws. I said that current laws are being enforced, but we need to increase penalties. Low penalties is not the only problem, so increasing them is not the only solution in EFCA.
 
leftysergeant said:
Maybe one of you people shrieking about coercion by union organizers can point to a few records of arrests of such organizers for tresspassing or extortion?

We know that there is a history of murder and extortion by business interests in the attempt to prevent unionisation. Such crimes by union organizers is a bit less easily documented, apparently.
Click to expand...

http://www.nrtw.org/blog/video-union-intimidation-action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOJEXi8YH2Q&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Also, any evidence into how much union intimidation will be going on?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you'd estimate the effects quantitatively since it hasn't been done yet. But there's good reason to think that it would be significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVrK4duq064

Again, where is your evidence? I gave 5% union, 23% management in card check intimidation. Management still wins out, so your point is still moot.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Management can't retaliate against someone for the way they vote in a secret ballot, but unions can retaliate against someone for the way they vote in public.

No, that was in response to you saying if current laws are being enforced we wouldn't need to add more laws. I said that current laws are being enforced, but we need to increase penalties. Low penalties is not the only problem, so increasing them is not the only solution in EFCA.
Click to expand...

That's not the point I was trying to make at all. Your own source said that the problem was continuing violations of existing laws. If that's the problem, then the remedy is a change in enforcement mechanisms. Whether you want to say that they're being enforced with insufficient penalties to be effective, or say that enforcement isn't working, I don't care: the problem, according to your source, is still that current laws aren't being adhered to. How can that be fixed? You already mentioned the most logical solution: increase penalties. Other methods might include more rigorous monitoring and timely addressing of violations. But the fact remains: the remedy for continuing violations of existing laws is logically a change of some sort in how those laws are enforced. New laws should be introduced if old laws are enforced but don't produce the necessary results, but according to your own source that's not what's going on.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not sure how you'd estimate the effects quantitatively since it hasn't been done yet. But there's good reason to think that it would be significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVrK4duq064
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence, and none to contradict mine. Thanks for playing.

No, it isn't. Management can't retaliate against someone for the way they vote in a secret ballot, but unions can retaliate against someone for the way they vote in public.
Click to expand...
Did you read anything? Intimidation goes far beyond retaliating for how they voted. See, for example, illegal firings, one-on-one meetings, availability of information, appealing to delay elections, etc. etc. all of which happens during secret ballots. Secret ballots != free elections.

That's not the point I was trying to make at all. Your own source said that the problem was continuing violations of existing laws. If that's the problem, then the remedy is a change in enforcement mechanisms. Whether you want to say that they're being enforced with insufficient penalties to be effective, or say that enforcement isn't working, I don't care: the problem, according to your source, is still that current laws aren't being adhered to. How can that be fixed? You already mentioned the most logical solution: increase penalties. Other methods might include more rigorous monitoring and timely addressing of violations. But the fact remains: the remedy for continuing violations of existing laws is logically a change of some sort in how those laws are enforced. New laws should be introduced if old laws are enforced but don't produce the necessary results, but according to your own source that's not what's going on.
Click to expand...
Really now, why are you pretending? You were the one who began this argument with the qualification "If the problem..." As I later corrected you, there is no the problem, as in sole problem. And that source was just one of the many sources I've cited with the problem of management coercion, but I gather you didn't read all that, as you seem to be pretending that that one quote I gave you is the entire argument.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Did you read anything? Intimidation goes far beyond retaliating for how they voted. See, for example, illegal firings
Click to expand...

The remedy for which, once again, should be a change in enforcement so that such firings don't happen. If it's already illegal but it happens anyways, the problem is not a lack of laws forbidding bad behavior on the part of employers.
 
Ziggurat said:
The remedy for which, once again, should be a change in enforcement so that such firings don't happen. If it's already illegal but it happens anyways, the problem is not a lack of laws forbidding bad behavior on the part of employers.
Click to expand...

See edit.
 
leftysergeant said:
Maybe one of you people shrieking about coercion by union organizers can point to a few records of arrests of such organizers for tresspassing or extortion?

We know that there is a history of murder and extortion by business interests in the attempt to prevent unionisation. Such crimes by union organizers is a bit less easily documented, apparently.
Click to expand...

Well, having spent quite some time down that way, Sligo County and Blair Mountain come to mind.
 
I work as an analyst part time for an arbitrator who hears exclusively labor disputes. Its extremely profitable and would be in my own best interest if this got passed because more unions means leads to more grievances, and that leads to more collective bargaining agreements that have a binding arbitration clause. More work, more money!

The reality is card check WILL be manipulated by unions and it will be used as a blunt object to slap over the heads of companies where strong social networks and peer pressures can be exploited to create a union where there would not otherwise be one.

What, exactly, is the problem with secret ballot union elections?

By the way, firing people for union organizing is illegal in the states I've looked into (I haven't seen all 50 states so there could be some out there). What most people get fired for is using job time for union organizing - which is explicitly not allowed and is/should be a termination offense.
 
Last edited:
Well I suppose I am the paradox. I believe in mostly a free market libertarian mindset, but I cannot justify the notion that labor should not be allowed to represent themselves. I don't see a problem with unions, because honestly I have never encountered them at all. Now I have been fired from a job because I corrected part of a training video that was supposed to teach how unions are part of some Marxist conspiracy to take over the world and run by Italians or something.
 
SOooo, anybody think to look up the track record of 'card check' elections that were NOT accepted by the employer, and whether they were overturned by a subsequent secret ballot? If many were overturned wouldn't that show that employees were intimidated during the open card check procedure? If overturning was very rare, then this is a moot point. Since it is NOT moot to the unions, the only reason they want it, is because it gives the union an advantage.
 
casebro said:
SOooo, anybody think to look up the track record of 'card check' elections that were NOT accepted by the employer, and whether they were overturned by a subsequent secret ballot? If many were overturned wouldn't that show that employees were intimidated during the open card check procedure? If overturning was very rare, then this is a moot point. Since it is NOT moot to the unions, the only reason they want it, is because it gives the union an advantage.
Click to expand...

Call me when you want to make conclusions based on facts.
 
WildCat said:
Let us know when you can cite a credible reason for card check, so far it's been nothing but "management bad, therefore we need to cheat a bit".
Click to expand...

Let me know when you stop reading minds and actually care what people say.

(What, bumping my thread? How dare you!)
 
from the 2nd post which is claimed to have killed this thread.
the free market determining a fair price based on what employers are willing to pay and workers are willing to accept.
Click to expand...

Since when is free market fair. When you have 2 hungry kids at home and no job, you are not really in a position to look for a job that you are willing to accept the payment to, you will have to take what is offered.

I support minimum wages, to prefent things like someone needing 3 jobs to get enough to make a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom