Should workers be able to vote for or against union representation on a secret ballot, or should they be subject to coercion by either the unions or management?
Introduction
In 2007, Congressman George Miller introduced a bill that would effectively replace the secret ballot election with a signature-based card-check system. If passed, it would provide unions with an easier means to organize in the workplace. Ironically, this bill has been tagged as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
As the debate brewed on the Hill, Democrat Senators bemoaned the 3 decade decline of the union movement. They called for a bill that would stop the downward slide and re-energize an era of collective bargaining. They pointed to the golden years of bargaining (1947-1973) when unions were nearly twice as strong as they are today. Oddly enough, none of their speeches addressed why a secret ballot election is a good thing for appointing Senators and Presidents, and yet inadequate for appointing union representation. Their speeches unveiled a singular truth that the Employee Free Choice Act wasn't intended to restore free choice to the workforce, but rather to restore strength and stability to a dying union movement.
Card Check and the Secret Ballot
According to U.S. labor law, an employer must recognize the right of employees to form a union. This can occur in one of two ways – either by a "card check" system or by a card check drive followed by "secret ballot" election. If employees choose a card check system alone, then a majority of employee signatures are required on valid authorization forms. Securing at least 51% of signatures will certify a union as an official bargaining unit unless an employer challenges the propriety of the process. But if employees choose to participate in a secret ballot election, then only 30% of total employee signatures are necessary in the card-check drive in order to prompt a vote.
When given the choice, however, unions will prefer the card check process alone over a secret ballot election. The reason is very simple; it's a matter of winning. To date, unions win a modest 55% of secret ballot elections. But if secret ballet were replaced by a card check system, unions estimate they would win about 80% of the contests. The Union Argument against Not surprisingly, employers prefer a secret ballot election. This isalso a matter of winning. Under current law, if an employer suspectsthat impropriety was present during the card check drive, they canchallenge it and require a secret ballot election. And in most cases,employers do just this. Between 1998 and 2005, only 13% of new AFL-CIOmembers joined without a secret ballot election . Employers know thata small fraction of workers will sign cards with no intention ofendorsing a union. Unions recognize this as well. In fact, many unionswill not go into a secret ballot election until they acquire at least65%-75% [a supermajority] of employee signatures
Secret Ballot Elections
The AFL-CIO advanced an argument detailing why a "majority sign-up" is the best option for preserving "the freedom of working people."
Below is a syllogism that encapsulates an argument found on the AFL-CIO website.
1. The workplace environment has been poisoned by browbeating employers.
2. This poisoning has led to an environment devoid of fair and free choice.
3. A secret ballot election does not undo the coercion of employers.
4. Therefore, Congress should pass a bill that mandates union formation by a simple majority of employee signatures.
A Critique of the Union Argument
Premise 1 is not a real concern. I see no reason to quibble over hyperbole.
Premise 2 is fallacious. A poisoned work environment would certainly make it tricky for a worker to vote their conscience, but it does not eliminate an employee's free choice. We already know that unions win 55% of their secret ballot elections, so premise 2 cannot be true.
Premise 3 appears to be good, but it presents somewhat of a straw man. I don't think anyone would expect that a secret ballot election could entirely "undo" employer coercion. This is too high of an expectation. However, this doesn't mean secret ballots should be dismissed either.
Also, there is nothing to suggest that a card check system would be equally sufficient or even superior at resolving a hostile work environment. It is my contention that whatever protective measures the Employee Free Choice Act intends to put into place in order to safeguard employees from harassment can also be done without discarding the secret ballot process. The cliché "throwing the baby out with the bath water" fits nicely here. Not only is the AFL-CIO attempting to throw out the baby with the bath water, they are trying to replace the water with sewage.
The AFL-CIO's Academic Study
In 2005, the American Rights at Work commissioned Professors Adrienne Eaton of and Jill Kriesky to conduct a telephone survey of workers who voted for and against union organization. The survey found that workers who participated in secret ballot elections were twice as likely to experience employer coercion as those who participated in a card check election. And fewer than 5% of workers who signed a card with a union representative present felt pressure to do so. The conclusion, according to the AFL-CIO, is that card check systems are superior because they reduce overall coercion.
Critiquing the Academic Study
There are a few problems with the survey. The first problem is that the survey's credibility can certainly be called into question. Professor Adrienne Eaton, Chair of the Labor Studies and Employment Relations Department at the University of Wisconsin, was commissioned to conduct the study by the American Rights at Work organization. Professor Eaton has authored several pro-union books, one of which argues for card check systems.
Second, the survey in question was a single inquiry from a relatively small sample of employees. Depending on the size of the sample, the industry of the employer, or the country where the sample was collected, results could vary significantly from survey to survey.
And most importantly, the survey was conducted on card check elections that specifically had "neutrality agreements." A neutrality agreement is a contract between a union organization and an employer that essentially serves as a gag order on management. The agreement specifically prohibits the employer from expressing their opinions to employees about the union campaign. Thus, it is entirely reasonable that those who participated in the survey would experience minimal tension from both parties since one side was contractually muzzled.
The Employee Free Choice Act, however, would not include a neutrality agreement. Therefore, employers are free to present their side of the argument. Using a study that included neutrality agreements in order to bolster support for a legislation that will not include neutrality agreements is misleading. The study supports a different sort of card check process, not the legislation in question.
Problems with Card Check Elections
The card check system has several inherent deficiencies that a secret ballet doesn't possess. First, it strips employees of their privacy and makes them vulnerable to intimidation and harassment. Second, it limits the full range of voting options. And third, it allows union representatives the opportunity to misrepresent the purpose of the card check drive, thus eliciting signatures that do not really endorse union formation.
Secret ballot elections are designed to provide employees the most efficient means to be heard by offering a full range of choices, which include voting yes, voting no, or not voting at all. It also provides the employee with a strong measure of privacy to vote their conscience. A card check election, on the other hand, precludes the possibility of a "no" vote. If you sign the form, it means "yes." If you don't sign it, it means "not yet." This allows unions enough time to pressure employees into conformity if they so desire.
James Sherk, a Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, has analyzed how card check systems can contribute to intimidation and harassment from union representatives. In a testimony before Congress in 2004, Ron Kipling testified that hotel employees in Los Angeles had to seek an injunction against union organizers after groups of eight to ten organizers harassed employees on their homes' porches late at night.
In another instance, according to the testimony of labor attorney Clyde Jacob, Trico Marine employees complained to their employer about union harassment during a card check drive. After 8 visits to a single home, an arrest warrant was issued against one of the union organizers.
To be certain, card check drives do not cause these problems, nor is union harassment prevalent in the U.S., but this system arms both unions and employers with private information about one's intent to vote, thus enabling both parties to act with indiscretion. During a campaign season, tension and stress can be particularly high. Both parties have invested interests in winning. And this can lead to harassment in the workplace.
For instance, thousands of unfair labor suits have been filed since 2000 including 1,417 for coercive statements, 416 for violence and assaults, 546 for harassment, and 1,325 for threatening statements.
In a similar vein, The AFL-CIO purports that 25% of employees have been terminated for engaging in union activity during union drives. Couple this with the knowledge of how employees intend to vote, and we will inevitably have problems. [Interestingly, the ACLU has been suspiciously silent on this issue.]A card check system also allows the opportunity of misrepresentation. In the case of Trico Marine, union representatives told employees that card signatures were for the purpose of prompting a secret ballot vote. After the signatures were elicited, the union attempted to pressure Trico to recognize the union on the basis of the signatures alone. http://www.heritage.org/Research/labor/bg2175.cfm This also occurred with employees of MGM Grand and employees of Kaiser.
Conclusion
According to the Seattle Times , the Employee Free Choice Act would be the most significant overhaul of federal labor law in sixty years. To be certain, there will be a lot of pressure to make this bill into law. If this bill passed in the Senate, it would substantially strengthen the union movement, but only by trampling on our nation's most revered democratic principles such as the freedom of choice and the right to privacy.
The argument that unions are an important instrument for strengthening the middle class cannot justify sacrificing what is right. We already have a system that has stood the test of time and has protected our privacy, freedom, and our ability to be heard at citizens. If there are problems with intimidation and harassment in the workplace, then they must be addressed without harming the secret ballot process. There is no question about it, Congress ought to preserve our cherished freedoms by killing the Employee Free Choice Act.
The problem is with your argument. A few points in question.
Professor Eaton has written books on labour. She however conducted a survey in this study. you accuse her with no proof other than your opinion. Relate hard proof she fixed the survey instead of conjecture.
claiming all actions as unfair labour suits indicates bias.
some must be justifiable.
What is the revered right to privacy amount to when wiretapping on any citizen is made legal?
Comment back to Patrick;
"What is the revered right to privacy amount to when wiretapping on any citizen is made legal?" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this essay. However; the comment does speak volumes about YOUR particular worldview.
The only fact that one has to retain to realize that the Employee Free Choice Act is anything but; is to look at the condition of the three most heavily unionized 'indusries' in this country: The automakers, the airlines, and the public school system are the three areas with the greatest union representation. School teachers are incapable of teaching children to read or balance a checkbook. The automakers have already received billions of dollars in a futile attempt to cover the legacy costs imposed on them by collective barganing. Airline passengers are some of the most dissatisfied consumers in the USA, says the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction index. The below referenced article explains;
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-05-15-airline-survey-usat_N.htm
Invariably; unions are the problem, not the answer. They do not significantly increase worker safety. Unions, because of outdated work rules, usually obstruct any streamlining of process; forcing employers to endure costs not borne by their non-unionized competitors.
I'm certain that your answer to this problem is not to rid one company of the union but rather to ensure that the other company is saddled with a union as well.
There was a time when unionization had a purpose; in the 1950's. Companies today have competitive wage/benefits packages because of those early strides. But, like a useless appendage that atrophies for non-use because it no longer has a purpose; the unions are already dead, we just need to remove the life support.
Companies that intend to compete in the 21st century will do so because they are nimble, lean, and quick to respond to changing customer demand. None of those adjectives may be used to describe a union shop. Unions are stodgy, backward looking, hierarchal organizations whose only concern is the condidion of the wage/benefits package. Its last concern is the current condition of the market.
One needs to look no further than the recent auto bailout hearings. The UAW REFUSED to align their wage scale to that of the Japanese automakers. They knew their cronies in the Senate would give the automakers the bailout cash without the union having to make ANY wage concessions. The UAW ensured that each Union member got his/her piece of the pie when times were good. Once the economic conditions soured, the union's answer was "Tough ****"!
But for persons such as yourself; that must have seemed a real victory for the proletariat.
Patrick,
"The problem is with your argument. A few points in question.
Professor Eaton has written books on labour. She however conducted a survey in this study. you accuse her with no proof other than your opinion. Relate hard proof she fixed the survey instead of conjecture."
————————————————————
I think you misunderstood my intent. I didn't accuse Professor Eaton of anything malicious. I suggested that her preconceived views on labor and the card-check system may have slanted or corrupted her study. This is a valid concern, but certainly not a point that I would rest my case upon. Remember, if I had stated that the study should be entirely dismissed on this point alone, then it would be ad hominem. I did not do this, however. Points 1 and 2 were not meant to dismiss the study, but point 3 is.
Thanks for the comments.
Myth vs. Reality: The REALITY is the Employee Free Choice Act Helps American Workers and their Families.
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
As more and more working Americans struggle to make ends meet, the ability to form a union is key to the economic stability, health, and well-being of American families. Union workers’ median weekly earnings are 30 percent higher than those of non-union workers, union workers are 63 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and union workers are 77 percent more likely to have short-term disability benefits. According to a recent poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans would join a union if they could. (AFL-CIO, “The Union Difference: Union Advantage by the Numbers.”)
Loopholes in our current labor laws have left millions of workers vulnerable to aggressive anti-union campaigns, in which unscrupulous employers intimidate, harass, and even fire workers who try to form unions. Even when they succeed in forming a union — often despite intense pressure from their employers — nearly one-third of newly-organized workers are unable to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. The widespread failure to attain a first contract is due in large part to the lack of effective penalties for employers that fail to bargain in good faith.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), sponsored by Senate and House Democrats, would level the playing field and restore workers’ freedom to form unions and collectively bargain by: 1) strengthening penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate employees; 2) establishing mediation and binding arbitration guidelines when employers and workers cannot agree on a first contract; and 3) enabling employees to form unions when a majority express their desire to do so by signing authorization cards.
Despite the need for reform, critics of EFCA continue to misinform the public about the bill and hide the serious shortcomings of current labor law. Democrats are committed to setting the record straight and passing this important legislation on behalf of American workers and their families.
MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.
REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select — or not to select — a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.
Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), there are three ways for workers to form a union:
1) By secret-ballot: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will conduct a secret-ballot election to select a bargaining representative if at least 30 percent of workers have signed a petition or authorization cards in favor of a union. If a majority of workers voting select a particular union, the NLRB will certify that union as the employees’ bargaining representative. EFCA does not change this process.
2) By voluntary card-check recognition: An employer can voluntarily decide to recognize a union representative if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.
3) By NLRB-ordered recognition: As a last resort, the NLRB can order an employer who has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely to recognize a labor union if a majority of employees have signed authorization cards in favor of the union. EFCA does not change this process.
EFCA would simply add a fourth choice for workers seeking to form a union. The legislation would require the NLRB to certify a union representative if a majority — more than half — of workers sign authorization cards in favor of the union.
The majority sign-up, or “card-check,” option would simply streamline the union selection process for workplaces that have a majority of workers who want to join a union. This is the same majority that would be voting in a secret-ballot election. Moreover, the majority sign-up process already exists, but only if the employer chooses to recognize it. EFCA would extend the right to select a union representative via the majority-sign up process to workers themselves.
MYTH: Secret-ballot elections are the fairest way to select a union representative.
REALITY: Secret-ballot elections in the union context can leave employees vulnerable to virtually un-checked employer intimidation and coercion.
Under current law, once workers have petitioned the NLRB to hold a secret-ballot election, there is no set timetable for holding that election. Employers who are determined to prevent the formation of a union often use this period to threaten, discriminate against, de-mote, dock the pay of, and even fire pro-union employees. Studies have shown that one-quarter of private-sector union organization drives result in employee firings, and one out of every five workers who openly advocate for a union is fired. Unfortunately, current law includes weak remedies that fail to deter employers from engaging in these practices. At best, the NLRA will order the employer to stop its wrong-doing and reinstate an improperly fired employee and force the employer to pay back-pay, that is, unless the employee has found a job in the interim.
EFCA would toughen the penalties against employers who engage in these unfair labor practices. In addition to ordering an employer to stop the practices, the legislation would require employers to pay employees who are fired as a result of union organizing activity, during an organizing campaign or first contract drive, treble damages (i.e. back-pay, plus liquidated damages two times that amount.). The bill would also impose civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers who willfully or repeatedly violate workers’ rights in forming a union.
MYTH: Secret-ballot elections are the most democratic way to choose a union.
REALITY: Though EFCA gives workers the choice to select a secret-ballot election or the majority sign-up process, these secret-ballot elections are nothing like our federal, state, or local candidate elections. The NLRB’s election process, for example, stifles free speech and democratic debate by restricting the ability of unions and pro-union workers to communicate with employees, while allowing employers free access to workers every day.
Unlike other elections, where candidates are allowed equal access to voters during the campaign, current labor laws allow employers to bar unions from the workplace and refuse access to employee contact information until just days before the election. While strict limits apply to when and where pro-union employees can campaign to form a union, employers can require workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, one-on-one or in a group. Employers may also direct supervisors, who control pay and promotion, to deliver anti-union messages to workers and attach anti-union literature to paychecks. A recent survey found that employees who have gone through the NLRB election process are twice as likely to report employer coercion as those who participated in a majority sign-up process.
EFCA would give workers the option to choose a different, simpler, and fairer method of union selection — majority sign-up, which reflects a key tenet of Democracy — majority rule.
MYTH: Majority sign-up is untested and will increase intimidation and harassment of workers by labor unions.
REALITY: Majority sign-up has been well-tested for over 70 years. Further, under EFCA, worker intimidation and/or coercion by any party, including unions, will remain strictly prohibited.
Majority sign-up is nothing new. Workers have been forming unions through majority sign-up since 1935. The method for obtaining authorization cards is already established and used via the voluntary card check recognition and the secret-ballot election processes. Indeed, more workers form unions via card check than via secret-ballot elections. In 2004, approximately 375,000 workers joined AFL-CIO unions through majority sign-up, while approximately 73,000 workers used the NLRB election process. (AFL-CIO, “Over 70 Years of Experience with Majority Sign-up.”)
While the critics of EFCA claim that, under the legislation, unions may intimidate workers, under current law, employers, employees, and unions are barred from engaging in unfair labor practices. Improperly obtained authorization cards are already invalid and cannot be counted towards majority sign-up. Moreover, in more than 70 years, there have been very few instances of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining card signatures. Nevertheless, to ensure the integrity of the card check process, EFCA would require that the NLRB develop guidelines for selecting a bargaining representative via majority-sign up, including model language for authorization cards and procedures to verify the validity of authorization cards.
MYTH: EFCA would require “public” union card signings.
REALITY: EFCA would preserve current confidentiality requirements, which require the NLRB to keep authorization cards and the identity of signers confidential to protect workers from employer retaliation.
MYTH: EFCA will “silence” employers.
REALITY: Nothing in EFCA alters the rights of employers to speak-out against a labor union.
Under the legislation, employers would still be free to campaign against a union, as long as they do not threaten or intimidate workers. EFCA only strengthens penalties for employers who engage in unfair labor practices.
MYTH: EFCA’s mediation/arbitration guidelines will force unwanted contracts on employers and employees.
REALITY: EFCA does not force unwanted first contracts on parties acting in good faith; the legislation, however, would give parties an incentive to come to the bargaining table.
Under current law governing the first contract process, there is no effective penalty for refusing to bargain with newly certified union representatives. As a result, employers may “stonewall” the first contract and effectively block the benefits of a labor union. A recent study found that 34 percent of union election certifications do not result in a contract for workers.
To get parties to the table, EFCA provides a starting schedule and a framework for negotiations. The parties have a minimum of 90 days to bargain on their own and may extend negotiations for as long as they need to. If the negotiations are unsuccessful, either party can seek help from a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), which enjoys an 86 percent success rate. If after 30 days mediation fails to result in a first contract, FMCS can refer the dispute to an arbitration panel, but the parties can still extend the period by mutual agreement or agree to return to the bargaining table. Only if the parties agree to arbitration and arbitration fails to result in a first contract will the arbitration panel impose contract terms on the issues the parties have not yet decided. Even then, the contract is only binding for two years and can be amended by written consent of the parties.
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
Post number 1 made me laugh. Mr. DeBerg begins by asserting that the author's suspcion of the professor is irrelevant to the study that was conducted, and therefore the entire multi-faceted argument dismissable. He then proceeds to make a completely irrelevant quip about the wiretapping of telephone calls routed through American telephone networks by suspected terrorists. Pot, meet kettle.
[...] Critiquing the Employee Free Choice Act Intellectual Conservative ,January 16, 2009 If this bill passed in the Senate, it would substantially strengthen the union movement, but only by trampling on our nation's most revered democratic … [...]
The arguments are all intellectual. The bottom line is that unions hurt companies and in the long run put workers out of work. What company has been made stronger by a union? Answer, none. My response would be to a group of workers if they wanted a union would be to close the doors unless they wanted to put up the money for the risk of running a business. I am tired of no one telling everyone that the emperor has no clothes and is nude. Let's call the unions what they are, anti-jobs and anti-free enterprise. There should be no give and take to this argument.
The bottom line is NOT that unions hurt companies. They have there flaws and many are they but every union in the world is not as you wish to portay them here. I understand that you need them to fit a mold in your own mind. It justifies a cursory examination and dismissal with no thought. Here is the truth of the matter. The collapse of the banking industry was not brought on by a unionized force.
The utter destruction america faces today was not due to a labour organization. If anything anti labour forces brought it down. Face it, banks never built anything, never did anything but speculate on the actual labour of others. Truly they are parasites that need people to build thins and wire things and weld things. To even suggest that unions are anti jobs and anti free enterprize is to need to believe in your narrative. You have a huge sector in stockbrokers, banks, derivatives, shorting stock, investment banks and on and on that do not build wealth.
I believe you need a world where people build things rather that gamble on things to keep finance growing. The people that build things buy things. If they have low wages they will not. All the fancy names you wish to call the market based ideas comes down to buying and selling things. The problem america faces now is their is not enough people with money to keep the economy liquid. All the "bubbles that have burst in the last decade including the recent one that has the world on it's knees were brought to you by the pure free enterprizers and the rabidly anti union. don't blame unions for this. They had nothing to do with this.
The last point I made was to the last paragraph in the essay. It is pure opinion. It is feelings. The truth right now as it stands is you have crushed a great many of the middle class with the actions taken so far. If you actually study the history of the men and women in the past you will see that their sacrifices were great. You use anti union sites to prop up your arguments. That will not allow you to find the truth of the matter. You see I realize you need capitalism and trade and jobs. I do not need to be convinced. But you do yourselves a disservice in not examining the argument. At Christmas I sat with a man that owned many car stamping plants and listened to him say he had no trouble with a man earning 20 million a year and within the same breath could not understand why someone should earn 32 dollars an hour. The irony was he was down to 50% capacity because no one was buying cars. He made parts for every manufacturer in the world and can see sales in nearly every carmaker plummeting. He could not see that the people making cars now can't afford them. and yet all he could see was to pay people even less thus speeding up the crash. He has enough money to come out ahead of the game no matter what but seems disconnected from what is happening. If you do not wish to see and base your opinion on notions of freedom and emotions you will have no clarity. And clarity is what's needed right now
Patrick, Thanks for not disappointing me. Your reply is based on the fact that you have to have jobs that allow people to buy things like cars. Cars are too expensive because of unions. The unions have had a hey day on the backs of the rest of the workers in America. Why should a union worker be able to afford a car and a guy that works at the mall not be able to afford that same car? Is it because his uncle didn't know someone at the union? Why should a company be saddled with rules that allow for so many jobs to be so singular in nature. Protectionism is what has gotten us into the shape that we are in today by overpricing our products. Trust me on this one, a union worker will look for the best price he can get when he is spending his money and to heck with the union brotherhood. He will not call the local union electrical, plumbing, carpenter, etc. union to get a job done but will look out for his billfold first and foremost. While my opinion of Wall Street is much like yours it is a necessary component in a capitalistic society. My simple solution for the corrupt system that is in place today would be to move them out of New York and out into real America. The air there is distorted and something needs to be done about it and passing a bunch of laws will not keep a crook honest, it must come from within.
The guy you refer to about the 20 million dollars is the type person that we need in this country. He is the one that creates jobs. He should be praised, not scorned.
And just a personal note, I am not a wealthy person by any stretch of the imagination, I grew up in a steelworker household and I saw firsthand what unions do to companies, they kill them.
And DeBerg drives hard with another logical fallacy and changes the subject. Score!
Mr. DeBerg,
You said, "The last point I made was to the last paragraph in the essay. It is pure opinion. It is feelings."
Here is the last paragraph of the article.
"The argument that unions are an important instrument for strengthening the middle class cannot justify sacrificing what is right. We already have a system that has stood the test of time and has protected our privacy, freedom, and our ability to be heard at citizens. If there are problems with intimidation and harassment in the workplace, then they must be addressed without harming the secret ballot process. There is no question about it, Congress ought to preserve our cherished freedoms by killing the Employee Free Choice Act."
I fail to see what part of this paragraph is pure opinion. Please demonstrate how the secret ballot process is a system that has not worked in terms of protecting our privacy? And please explain how removing it would improve privacy issues in the work place.
Deberg, Unions not only weaken the middle class, they weaken our entire economic system. As I asked you before, please tell me where a union has helped a company get stronger. You can't because you think that because a person works at a company, he mysteriously owns part of it. That is your fallacy and when you finally recognize that, the better off you will be.
Hvance,
Doesn't union law also presume that the employee mysteriously owns part of the company? If not, how are they able to bargain with the company?
Aaron, Please, employees only think that they own part of the profits. A company should have the right to hire the best employees possible. Not let's let logic enter the equation. If a company has an excellent employee why in the world would it want to make that employee unhappy? Happy employees make a company stronger and therefore more profitable and therefore more likely to get a higher salary or a bonus. If the company does not do this in rewarding its employees then it will lose valuable employees to its competitors. You cannot make an employee an entrepreneur by passing laws. That is the hole in your position. As for bargaining, that is done by a miserable law that was passed in order to obtain votes, not for an individual's advancement on his own merits.
You may not like it, but that miserable law presumes that employees have a share in that company. I couldn't imagine why else collective bargaining would be permissible under U.S. law. I'm not saying that it's right, but it appears to be true – at least under the law, does it not?
And although I'm sympathetic to your free market approach to "employer shopping", sometimes it's not so easy to relocate employment even if one has a malicious boss.
Aaron, I do not know the law as you describe it. I can only hope that the employee can petition to form a union. I do know, or at least I think I know, that if a compromise with a union can't be reached then the employer can hire other people for the jobs. The law needs to be changed. As for location, the employee is free to move if he wants to to a better job. The employer has the right to hire and run his company as he sees fit. Do not forget that the employee has neither the idea nor shin in the game. He has offered up his time for a wage to do a job. nothing more, nothing less. The employee after all is said and done is freer than the employer in that he is free to leave at any moment where the employer is saddled with the business. While he may have greater economic gain (and loss), he is bridled by the circumstance that he put himself. Both agendas have pluses and minuses.
Obama gives his campaign organization a name — "Organizing for America"
In a video message to supporters, Obama gives his campaign organization a name — "Organizing for America" — part of the ongoing effort to keep up the grassroots movement started during his presidential campaign once he's formally installed in the White House.
Organizing For America begins with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949
History
In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation… simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. 'If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means… by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB,[(1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org
Aaron and hvance.
I see your passion for what you feel is right. but do not think you are pragmatic enough. hvance, indeed an employer can run a business as he sees fit but once you have two people the relationship changes. You have to take into account the reality of the situation. An employer does not a company make, it is the employess that do the heavy lifting. Like that or dislike it that is the truth of the matter.
To much today has been predicated by the concept of my way or the highway. Ego has created this disaster. If you want to go down in flames to be right well I can't help your way of thinking. America has always had this concept of each for his own in the marketplace and stopped thinking of what harm could be brought on by this idea. Wether you beleive it or not we MUST work together to lift ourselves out of this pit. It will get much worse before it gets better. You seem to see the fellow making 30 bucks an hour as the threat to mankind but your rhetoric
appears a bit hysterical. And to tell you the truth most of the talk of "happy employees " is little more than talk. If everyone with a family is hostage to fortune people have to make a choice and many employers are willing to exploit that. I think the flaw in your point of view is that you never take human nature to account when talking. Unregulated markets have destroyed this economy and you are afraid to let your version of utopia go. If you cannot see how your rhetoric is doing grave damage to the USA then you WILL be shuffled to the margins. There are many more 30 dollar guys losing their savings and future than 20 million guys and when hungry they will vote for more control. This is a fact. The numbers are against you.
Aaron, look here,
We already have a system that has stood the test of time and has protected our privacy, freedom, and our ability to be heard at citizens.
The sentence above is subject to YOUR idea of privacy, freedom, and our ability to be heard. It certainly is not mine. Thus is it your opinion. I am not too sure how much of the system is left.
If there are problems with intimidation and harassment in the workplace, then they must be addressed without harming the secret ballot process.
Good luck with this point. Unions were started because of this point years ago. Refere to my point above about human nature.
There is no question about it, Congress ought to preserve our cherished freedoms by killing the Employee Free Choice Act."
your "cherished freedoms" have taken quite a beating in the last few years.
Mr. DeBerg,
I'm not sure what you mean about "cherished freedoms" taking a beating. One thing is certain, the Employee Free Choice Act will reduce employee privacy. Reducing privacy during an election process is not prudent, nor is it necessary to remedy employer intimidation. And I'm not quite sure how one could argue the contrary.
The secret ballot has been deemed appropriate for the highest officials in the land, and yet it is considered inappropriate by unions for union formation? How is that justifiable?
Aaron
The secret ballot created chaos in Florida, Ohio to name a few and put into question the result of a few election. The only thing that saved it this election was the overwhelming turnout. You build your case on the supposition that the election will be fair. Human nature has proven time and again that is NOT the case. If you are afraid the union is manipulating the vote why not mention just in passing the company is using the same. But you seem to indicate the union is responsible for such tactics. the card check streamlines the process a cost saving that can be handed on to the company.
That's incorrect and quite fallacious. The secret ballot did not create chaos in Florida and Ohio. Here is a simple way of defeating your logic. If the secret ballot indeed created chaos in Florida and Ohio, then why didn't it create chaos in the other 48 states?
The answer is simple, secret ballot is not the problem. It never was. The problem is that the nature of unions is to grow, and they are having problems growing when formation comes to a secret ballot vote. Therefore, the secret ballot vote must go. But the only way to get rid of the secret ballot is to vilify it as something inherently wrong. This, of course, is a formidable task since the secret ballot process is pretty much accepted by everyone for government elections.
And although you are right that human nature will always put an election process to the test, the answer is not to remove the only system that is designed to ensure privacy.
What would happen if you forced a speaker to give a speech in front of 10,000 people while in the nude? Would not the loss of privacy intimidate or in the very least distract the speaker? Analogously, keeping privacy intact will facilitate confidence and the ability to do what one thinks is right without undue intimidation.
Employee Free Choice Now . Org
Educating The World on The EFCA.
Myth vs. Reality: The REALITY is the Employee Free Choice Act Helps American Workers and their Families.
Despite the need for reform, critics of EFCA continue to misinform the public about the bill and hide the serious shortcomings of current labor law. Democrats are committed to setting the record straight and passing this important legislation on behalf of American workers and their families.
MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.
REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select — or not to select — a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.
The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949
History
In 1949, the NLRB's Joy Silk Doctrine established that "an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a 'good faith doubt' as to the union's majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where "the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer 'will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation… simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. 'If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
In 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the use of card check. Warren stated, "Almost from the inception of the Act, then, it was recognized that a union did not have to be certified as the winner of a Board election to invoke a bargaining obligation; it could establish majority status by other means… by showing convincing support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote, or, as here, by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes." The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of card check, and Warren cited prior affirmations in NLRB v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., (1940); Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB,[(1944); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Flooring Co., (1956).
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org
Aaron!
Because the vote was too far apart in the other states! Only in Florida and Ohio was the vote close enough fo merit the attention. That Aaron, is the point I'm trying to make. Union votes are charged with passion due to their very nature and in nearly every case close to 50 plus one. You might feel that it did not add to the chaos sir but tell me then what did? You should ask yourself why was there was chaos at all? It seems in Canada they can run an election, have the results almost the same night and have any recounts settled the next day. No hint of spoiled ballet tricks, disinfranchised voters or any of the things that infect american elections. Why would that be?
As far as the nature of unions, why is growth a bad word with you? If the company grows so does the union. Thus thought then it's bad for the company to grow. Not the case I would believe you agree with. As for the concept of secret ballets prohibiting growth I think the last election was by secret ballet and it will result in great union growth. You fail to understand what's happening here. A great union of people got together and revoked Republican privilege. And that happened because of the massive loss to so many people who thought it could never happen to them.
And all that was offered to them was you didn't work hard enough, fast enough, long enough. You didn't save enough you were foolish, naive, stupid. You were not carrying enough health care. A massive fraud was perpetrated on the American people that they were not responsible for and the madoffs of the world just shrugged their shoulders. The dreams of millions imploded and all that was offered was it's your own fault. So the people rose up and revoked the privilege. Union is a misunderstood word. Here are some other phrases for union; Chamber of commerce, G8 summit, Knights of Columbus, Shriners, guild of pressmen, association of talk show hosts and so forth. But when people band together it's their reason that counts. Unions are pro business but merely wish to level the playing field. This act simply levels the playing field.
hvance
American cars are among the cheapest best built on the road.
However you don't seem to be buying them.
Patrick, I see you once again fail to post even one company made better by a union. You also neglect to address why a $30 an hour guy should be privileged to buy a car when the guy at the mall can't because he has to pay for your bloated benefits and wages. And let's not forget the point I made about employers rewarding good employees. You probably are not in that group because of a union rule allowing you to keep the buggy whips in order. The tired old argument of "heavy lifting" is so bogus that it hardly merits a reply but I will try to open your eyes once again. Just who is it that makes a person take a job that he doesn't want? No one. There are far too many reasons for no unions in that we are in a world economy than to go to the past and cling to a losing formula. Examples? See gm. ford, chrysler to name a few.
Deberg, You are wrong again, I drive a ford product. As for your claim of the American car being the cheapest I don't know where you get those figures but just try one time to imagine how many fords and chevys and dodges could be sold without the unions. Have you not noticed that everyone votes with their pocketbooks and they buy what they consider is the best product at the best price. Get out of the kool-aid line and realize that it is competition that makes things better, not unions. When companies are strong jobs are secure and prices are affordable for many more Americans than just for the select few union workers. They will eventually price themselves out of a job. I have seen first hand in my home town what unions do to a town and it isn't pretty.
hvance,
Do you really believe a union decimated a town, not a lack of credit, destruction of the pension plans through derivitives, or simple market forces? No! No! No! In your world it could only be greedy unions not the altruistic shirt of my back CEO's or benevolent Bernie Madhoffs. Their out there creating jobs for all kinds of happy workers in a non union paradise!! Of course if only every one was paid 7 dollars an hour they would buy so many more cheap cars!! Kinda like those cheap houses they had for a while. Why don't we all go out on strike for 2 dollars an hour! That will fix them. We could live like a Ppennsylvania coal town in the 1900's again. So I'm the one who's drinking kool aid?
"Because the vote was too far apart in the other states! Only in Florida and Ohio was the vote close enough fo merit the attention. That Aaron, is the point I'm trying to make."
You haven't addressed the fallacy. If Florida and Ohio are proof that secret ballot elections are flawed, then why don't we see the problems of these two states widely spread at every election? furthermore, I see no reason to believe that the problems that erupted in Florida and Ohio are a problem with the secret ballot, but rather a problem with local ballot counting when elections are close – which hasn't been much of an issue in other states. The point you seem to be missing is the significance of "secret" in a secret ballot process. And the concept of "secrecy" has no logical connection to hanging chads or ballot recounting. You have yet to show that any other election process is better than a secret ballot, and until you do this, the unions are clearly unjustified in their position with the Employee Free Choice Act.
"As far as the nature of unions, why is growth a bad word with you?"
I don't recall saying that union growth is bad. My point is that union bodies are very much like corporations. Their primary purpose is to grow, not to represent the people or to put the best interests of the employee first. This, I believe, is the reason why unions are willing to discard the secret ballot process – not because there is some inherent flaw in the process.
"And all that was offered to them was you didn't work hard enough, fast enough, long enough. You didn't save enough you were foolish, naive, stupid. You were not carrying enough health care. A massive fraud was perpetrated on the American people that they were not responsible for and the madoffs of the world just shrugged their shoulders."
This is getting away from the topic. My problem isn't with unions. My problem is with them trashing the secret ballot, which has been a great value to our society by protecting the privacy of the citizenry as they enter the election process. In my mind, there is no justification great enough to remove the right of privacy from individuals.
Aaron, You will note that DeBerg has never stayed on topic because he has no leg on which to stand. He recites to same old rhetoric each time, "you stold the election", "secret ballots aren't fair" ( if the union is such a great deal why do they fear a secret ballot?), "workers do all of the heavy lifting", "the boss makes money on our backs", "Unions are going under because of Bernie Madoff" , "employees deserve a share in the company without investment", etc., etc., etc. Have you noticed how when asked to name one, not a hundred, company that has been made better by a union that he starts into his Joseph Goebbels' routine? It's really sad to see guys like Deberg led down the path of socialism. They do not realize that that is the death of their jobs.
Hvance,
Why don't you tone down your rhetoric a bit hmmm? I never said you stole the election, merely pointed out the trouble with the secret ballet in those states. You sir should be far more troubled about this affront to democracy
than you seem. To you it would seem it's about who wins or loses, to me it's about the integrity of the process.
It seems you would rather live in a banana republic as long as you win. This says much about who you are.
Heavy lifting? Hello! The 1000 people in a factory DO the heavy lifting. That's how a plant works sir. Don't spend much time on a shop floor do you? The boss does make money off "our backs" thats how it works. I don't understand the problems you seem to have with simple fact.
I never once said unions are going under be cause of Bernie I said the banks were going under because of the type of behavior he exibited. You say everything is a talking point but use facts that are easy to see.
Only a fool would say employees have no investment in a company. They are on the floor everyday sir. Many of them invest to find their investment was stripped away by some ceo bonus or get lost package. I will get to companies soon but have a life and a job so can't spend every waking hour at this effort. Give me time and we will see. Refer to the questions by the EFCA posting above I notice you and Aaron have all but ignored it. By the way, there is a theory posited that within 30 posts on a blog one or the other antagonist will make a reference to Nazism as the argument intensifies. As you can see hvance you prove the theory hold water. Here is a bone to chew on old boy, In the last election the majority of us stayed on topic and threw your ass out on the street. Our jobs din't die, you killed them
deberg, thanks for toning down the rhetoric by calling me a fool. I feel sorry for you.
Wow this discussion has drifted. Seems to me that this should be broadened to guarantee that ALL elections held in the USA at any level should be handled without recourse to secret ballots. It should also require that records be kept showing how each person voted on any issue and be a matter of public record.
Of course, if the broadening does not feel righ to you, then you understand what a terrible idea the EFCA represents.
guess I should proof read and spell right correctly instead of righ
Mickey G, You realize when you make a typo, others in this discussion not only misspell, but are not aware of grammatical errors that they make. Don't sweat it.
Mickey,
If secret ballot were replaced by a card-check system in U.S. elections, it would give the government entirely too much information about voters. Think what could happen if our government became more malicious?
Aaron, sounds like you find a problem with my proposal which suggests you do not like the idea of card checks (said tongue in cheek) either as indicated in your article.
There is, however no difference in the effect of non-secret ballots somebody knows too much and can cause untold grief. Maybe that is the idea behind secret ballots. EFCA then sounds like a bad idea.
[...] Choice Act by dissecting all arguments – business, union, academia – before concluding that EFCA is not beneficial for our economy or our [...]