Employee_Free_Choice_Act

[Scot]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

It doesn't eliminate the secret ballot.

It gives unions and employees the decision about whether the ballot should be secret or not. Instead of management.

Sure, technically you're correct. It doesn't eliminate the secret ballot. What it does is allow those that oppose unionization to be targeted.

So if an employee decides he's for a secret ballot, then what should union organizers conclude about how that employee might vote?

And what will they do to him after the election?

Anyone that supports the EFCA is supporting the threat of violence and intimidation in the effort to increase union power.

[wkwillis]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I like the idea of giving conservatives what they say they want.
Every year on Labor Day we send the employees home with a ballot and an envelope. Cost, one dollar.
Each employee fills in the ballot with a vote for no union, or a union on a ranked preference ballot. So 19% vote for no union, followed by 17% for Teamsters, and 13% for SEIU, etc.
As soon as 51% of the employees vote for a union, you have a union.
I call it the one dollar organising drive. Easiest way to form a union. No campaign where the employers can target the prounion voters, no delay so the company can prepare to move production someplace else, no time to hire and train scabs, just a union organiser shows up in your office and gives you a contract to sign or the workers get a strike vote ballot at lunch to bring in the next day.
It's what the conservatives say they want. A secret ballot. Once to form a union, once to strike. Hell, the union doesn't even know there's going to be a local forming till the Feds give them a call. How is the company going to know?

[wkwillis]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

This is designed to take all the military contractors like FedEx, the guys that work for the army as civilians, and draft them into the army in case we have to invade Iran.
Did you know that the million extra soldiers we used to have are still there, but as contractors? This new law is so they have to go to Iran without the usual 100,000 dollars per year danger bonus. Which we can no longer afford once the Chinese cut off our money.
They aren't going to draft inexperienced eighteen year olds, they want experienced workers. Like, I don't know, you?

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

The law basically means your fellow employees can badger you into voting union!!

Seriously, for those who are ambivalent .. think this through. Can you imagine the peer pressure that will be applied for you to sign the card?

It's a freaking nightmare. I think if this law passes, you can imagine that people will go ballistic.

I just don't see it passing in the senate. There is absolutely no way in hell any republican in his right mind will vote for it.

[WDCRob]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Never mind.

[flintlock]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

if the bill passes will there be more unions?

Yes, x billionty.

[Munger]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Sure, technically you're correct. It doesn't eliminate the secret ballot. What it does is allow those that oppose unionization to be targeted.

So if an employee decides he's for a secret ballot, then what should union organizers conclude about how that employee might vote?

And what will they do to him after the election?

Anyone that supports the EFCA is supporting the threat of violence and intimidation in the effort to increase union power.

Anyone that doesn't support the EFCA is supporting the threat of violence and intimidation in the effort to not increase union power. Geez, blanket statements are fun.

It seems to me the Right has really gotten control of this debate. The act does not disallow secret ballots - rather, it allows a union representative to be appointed before a secret NLRB vote takes place. The data I have seen shows that 1 in 5 votes that go to the NLRB end up forming unions, and that in a majority of cases, prior to the vote happening one or more pro-union employees are fired as an example.

Watching the GOP and Fox news blast the bill for taking away worker rights if f'ing laughable. Seriously - does anyone seriously think these groups are pushing for worker rights?

Now, whether unions should be strengthened is open for debate - arguing that the bill is harmful to workers doesn't pass my sniff test.

[Scot]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

It seems to me the Right has really gotten control of this debate. The act does not disallow secret ballots - rather, it allows a union representative to be appointed before a secret NLRB vote takes place. The data I have seen shows that 1 in 5 votes that go to the NLRB end up forming unions, and that in a majority of cases, prior to the vote happening one or more pro-union employees are fired as an example.

Firing employees for union organizing is illegal. I doubt that it happens "in a majority of cases". Even so, if 4 out of 5 votes fail to create unions then that shows that time and time again employees don't want a union, but are pressured to agree to a vote.

Watching the GOP and Fox news blast the bill for taking away worker rights if f'ing laughable. Seriously - does anyone seriously think these groups are pushing for worker rights?

Maybe they're for individual rights. The secret ballot is pretty high on the list of individual rights, IMO. Card-check effectively eliminates it.

[Munger]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Firing employees for union organizing is illegal. I doubt that it happens "in a majority of cases". Even so, if 4 out of 5 votes fail to create unions then that shows that time and time again employees don't want a union, but are pressured to agree to a vote.

If the employer has undue influence over the process, as is claimed, then it doesn't show anything. Maybe this is the case, maybe not; you are jumping to conclusions.

I would like to see how many employees want or do not want unions. It seems to be mostly upside for the employee; all downside for the employer. I'd be interested in seeing more data.

Maybe they're for individual rights. The secret ballot is pretty high on the list of individual rights, IMO. Card-check effectively eliminates it.

Yea ... maybe ... I mean, if the GOP (or Dems for that matter) and big media have shown anything it is that they are strongly in favor of individual rights.

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

Big business has launched a no-holds-barred propaganda blitz against the Employee Free Choice Act. Their goal is to scare people into believing that if the bill passes it will trigger higher unemployment and a deeper recession.
Article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/0...ck-hullabaloo/

It's not a "scare tactic", it's a fact.

I'm guessing by your hostility toward "the man" that you don't own and/or run a business yourself. Either way, you have a distorted view of business realities. Sorry, my friend, but unions are bad for business. Unions make U.S. businesses less competitive in the world economy. Open your eyes to the realities of the U.S. steel industry and now the U.S. auto industry. Unions may have had a place in the late 1800's industrial revolution, but they are an antiquated, harmful, unecessary parasite in today's world. Here's why...

We business owners are not out to screw our employees. That would be bad for business. In most small businesses (I employ 150 at 3 different facilities in a third generation manufacturing business) the relationship between employer and employee is cooperative and friendly. I, and all business owners, want to employ as many people as possible!!!

However, we need to do so within the constraints and competitive pressures of the free-market economy within a globally competitive arena. Unionization reduces flexibility and increases expenses, both of which will cause higher unemployment and a deeper recession as unionized business become even less competitive.

Funny thing is, if you owned and ran a business, you'd feel exactly the same way as do I. I'm sure of it. So here's my life-changing tip-o-the-day for you. If you have only worked for bosses or businesses that are out to screw you, then you are missing a whole beautiful world. Try finding a small, family business to work for and see what cooperation, communication, shared accomplishment, and mutual respect can do for your anti-business attitude. Unions sure ain't the answer to creating your work utopia.

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

“Those that promote class conflict don't care, though. They want a fight. They want to stick it to business. Their interests aren't class cooperation and harmony. Their goal is to fatten their own wallets and to inflate their own egos -- all by punishing the the "other" class.”fficeffice" />

Now who has been waging class warfare for the past few decades against the poor and middle class? I really think that paragraph sums up the rich in this world quite accurately except who they want to stick it to.

“The very name "dissidentvoice" exudes hostility and class conflict.”

Just bringing another view of the situation to the forum.

As a business owner and employer of about 150, I take serious offense at your remarks. Business owners do not "get rich" by sticking it to the poor and middle class!!! That's an ignorant statement. Business owners "get rich" by creating successful businesses, and a key ingredient in that success is good, contributing employees. Most business owners were once the poor and middle class denizens themselves. They took a chance, toiled, sacrificed, and the minority that were successful are not now suddenly the rich, exploiting, piss-on-human beings, scumbags that you make them out to be.

If you think your employer is screwing you, you are free to go work somewhere else. If you think a bad employer is going to suddenly become a great employer just because you and your coworkers join a union, you are living in a dream world. A bad employer will only get worse if you bring in a union. Ironically, a good employer will also become a worse work environment if you bring in a union. My advice is to find a better employer than your current one, because they have given you a tainted, false impression of most businesses, business owners, and work environments. Better yet, go start your own business and employ as many people as you possibly can. That will open your horizons, not to mention your eyes.

[rjwjr]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

If the employer has undue influence over the process, as is claimed, then it doesn't show anything. Maybe this is the case, maybe not; you are jumping to conclusions.

I would like to see how many employees want or do not want unions. It seems to be mostly upside for the employee; all downside for the employer. I'd be interested in seeing more data.


Yea ... maybe ... I mean, if the GOP (or Dems for that matter) and big media have shown anything it is that they are strongly in favor of individual rights.

With all due respect to your discussion, the most relevant and likely only topic that matters is whether unions are good for U.S. business or bad for U.S. business. In the global economy and competitive marketplace, it is hard to argue a case that unions are good for business. Unions are a competitive drain on business.

Businesses CREATE employment, but businesses can NOT be FORCED to employ or the business will eventually fail, thus killing all employment. Same holds true for forcing a business to pay an above-market wage, provide above market benefits, and/or provide post-employment commitments. Doing so will eventually hurt the businesses' competitiveness, which will hurt employment in the unionized companies. This seems so obvious. In reality, it is amazing that many of our industries, auto especially, survived as long as they did with the parasite of the union negatively affecting their competitiveness.

In my opinion, and with the recent events of the U.S. auto industry, it seems crystal clear that unions are bad for business, bad for the U.S., and (in the long run) bad for the employees that they supposedly represent. In an environment of rising unemployment and a deepening recession, now is the absolute worst time for the U.S. economy to be trying to strengthen union influence and power. Unions are about as good for an economy as communism/central planning in my opinion. And like communism, they appear to be on life support, only survive by the sheer will and power of a few self-serving individuals, and would quickly die a glorious death in a free-market environment. I sure hope we don't extend that death with more pro-union legislation, especially not in this environment.

[Munger]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

With all due respect to your discussion, the most relevant and likely only topic that matters is whether unions are good for U.S. business or bad for U.S. business. In the global economy and competitive marketplace, it is hard to argue a case that unions are good for business. Unions are a competitive drain on business.

Businesses CREATE employment, but businesses can NOT be FORCED to employ or the business will eventually fail, thus killing all employment. Same holds true for forcing a business to pay an above-market wage, provide above market benefits, and/or provide post-employment commitments. Doing so will eventually hurt the businesses' competitiveness, which will hurt employment in the unionized companies. This seems so obvious. In reality, it is amazing that many of our industries, auto especially, survived as long as they did with the parasite of the union negatively affecting their competitiveness.

It may seem obvious, but I do not think it is so simple and is at the very least worth discussion. For example, if unions allow a greater percentage of profits to be allocated to the workers rather than the capital owners, this may create more demand for the very goods produced. Such arguments can lead to justification, for example, for an anarcho-syndacalist type system.

I think the stint of the argument, from Marx to Chomsky, is that if, for example, the capitalist owner is not really involved day-to-day and is acting more as an extractive rentier owner, then the owner is not contributing value and a significant amount of the excess profit should be allocated to the day-to-day generators of the profits - i.e., the workers. This greater allocation of profits to the workers allows them to put the money back into the economy by purchasing goods.

If it is desired that wealth should be distributed more evenly within society (open to debate) an interesting question is whether bottom-up type redistribution (such as unions) or top-down type redistribution (such as progressive taxation) is a better mechanism.

In my opinion, and with the recent events of the U.S. auto industry, it seems crystal clear that unions are bad for business, bad for the U.S., and (in the long run) bad for the employees that they supposedly represent. In an environment of rising unemployment and a deepening recession, now is the absolute worst time for the U.S. economy to be trying to strengthen union influence and power. Unions are about as good for an economy as communism/central planning in my opinion. And like communism, they appear to be on life support, only survive by the sheer will and power of a few self-serving individuals, and would quickly die a glorious death in a free-market environment. I sure hope we don't extend that death with more pro-union legislation, especially not in this environment.

Unions are bad for business owners, there can be little doubt. Whether they are bad for the economy as a whole is not so simple. If America strengthens unions while the rest of the world does not and trade is kept fairly free among these nations, then the competitive argument is pretty persuasive.

[Digidiver]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

First off, I posted an article for another view of the issue. I did not write the article and have no hostility to “the man” but think employees should be given a choice and a voice in organizations without fear of reprisal and a union is often the only way to accomplish it. I’ve actually been very lucky over the years with my employers but have seen many others around me that were not so lucky. I’ve seen where abusive practices of an employer were only corrected when a union was formed and the workers finally had some representation that had a voice. I’m sure in a small to mid-size business such as one you run, non-union works fine because you’re all like family and you care for each other etc. From what I have observed, talk of union organizing only occurs when employees have employers that are not addressing issues they feel important. So if you as an employer listen to your employee concerns and treat them fairly I’m sure the talk of unions will never come to your location and you have nothing to fear.

[Digidiver]

Re: Employee_Free_Choice_Act

I'm actually quite happy with my employer.
My comment was in response to “Scot” characterizing people that want to form a union as people that just want to fatten their wallet and stick it to business. I thought it an unfair statement so returned the favor.