The Employee Free Choice Act

If it removes the secret ballot, then no. And for two simple reasons: 1) Union strong arming and 2) Corporate blacklisting. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you vote on unionizing at a Wal-mart, and it fails, and Wal-mart knows who voted for it, guess who's getting the pink slip.
 
I don't support it on the basis that it gets rid of the secret ballot and the fact that the attitude of union leadership just really irks me nowadays.
 
If it removes the secret ballot, then no. And for two simple reasons: 1) Union strong arming and 2) Corporate blacklisting. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you vote on unionizing at a Wal-mart, and it fails, and Wal-mart knows who voted for it, guess who's getting the pink slip.

I agree with this. I believe laborers have the right to unionize, but their vote should be secret.
 
Corporations such as AT&T and UPS have unions which utilize majority sign up elections rather than secret ballot elections, and those unions are considered some of the best in the country. I really don't see why eliminating the secret ballot is all that detrimental.
 
If anything is to be properly democratic, a secret ballot is necessary. Getting rid of a secret ballot can lead to the worker getting screwed over, especially in an environment such as Wal-Mart and whatnot. Where you have a company that is notorious for screwing over workers and in truth unions don't give a flying **** about Wal-Mart employees.
 
But workers are already screwed over in the current union system we have. Granted, I am no expert on labor laws and I really do not have an opinion on this piece of legislation, but I know for a fact that management already intervenes in seemingly unlawful ways to encourage their employees to support or vote against current union proposals. I worked for a large grocery store chain in high school, and attended several "informational meetings" where our managers would basically spend hours lambasting proposals by the union we were a part of. In some cases, the management would make open-ended threats and do whatever they could to ensure that they had their hands hovering over us. In some cases, workers saw a reduction in their hours, which was detrimental considering most employees weren't guaranteed a set number of hours to work each week as it was.

From what I have read, majority sign-ups have eliminated managerial dominance over union members, and has allowed room for more negotiations between labor and management in many companies. The two companies I listed have created strong partnerships between both professional levels. I think that it would be wise to consider EFCA as a wise alternative to the current system we have, because the current system as it is has proven to be ineffective for years.
 
Which choice leads towards getting rid of unions altogether?
 
090908_congress_1-2.jpg


It appears that the Same Democrats that wrote a secret letter urging Mexico to keep the Secret Union Ballot are the ones leading the charge against a Secret Ballot in the US. :whatever:
 
Now let me see if I can present this incredible story to you in an understandable manner. We'll start with the issue – union elections. More specifically, attempts to unionize workforces. I want you to stick with me here because after I do a bit of explaining I'm going to expose you to one of the most blatant examples of political hypocrisy I've ever come across.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time.

Here's the way union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union by secret ballot. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter I have in my possession from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. I'm going to replicate the letter here. By the end of the show I hope to have a PDF file of the letter posted for you to look at. After all ... I could be lying, right? Note, please, just how the 16 Democrats who signed this letter felt about secret ballots in union elections.




OK ... so there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. In case you haven't already heard me talking about this, would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! The Democrats (it's their bill) have decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that support them year after year, and they're going to do away with secret ballots. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama (he's a sponsor of the Senate version) in the White House, this thing will become law. Then the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than the Democrats legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said: Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees in still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate. No surprise.

Pardon me ... but ... what the hell?

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Democrats and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

Commentary by Neal Boortz
 
If it removes the secret ballot, then no. And for two simple reasons: 1) Union strong arming and 2) Corporate blacklisting. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you vote on unionizing at a Wal-mart, and it fails, and Wal-mart knows who voted for it, guess who's getting the pink slip.

The EFCA doesn't remove the secret ballot. It actually gives the employee the option to use it (if they petition for it) rather than the employer requesting for one.
 
090908_congress_1-2.jpg


It appears that the Same Democrats that wrote a secret letter urging Mexico to keep the Secret Union Ballot are the ones leading the charge against a Secret Ballot in the US. :whatever:

And eight years have passed since that letter was written. The major corporations which have since utilized the majority sign up system have proven to be rather effective.
 
How is Unionization by intimidation "effective"?
 
How is Unionization by intimidation "effective"?

It is interesting that you quantify majority sign up as unionization by intimidation, when the current system is filled to the brim with intimidation and corruption. AT&T and UPS, as I previously mentioned, have a majority sign up system and their unions are considered some of the strongest in the country. Majority sign up encourages both the labor force and the managerial force to work together to achieve labor-intensive goals. It has proven to eliminate the tug-of-war which has existed between both groups since the secret ballot system was first adopted.

Frankly, I don't care what happens, one way or another. But I have been a part of a union, my parents are involved in a union, and the system as it is is flawed. Something has to change, and I think people are making a bigger deal out of EFCA than there really needs to be, especially since majority sign up has proven to be more beneficial than the secret ballot in regards to large, national corporations.
 
The fact of the matter is it isn't really a Union representative that is using intimidation its the employees who are for the Union. A secret ballot basically helps you lie to those people who are intimidating you. We had a secret ballot here where I work because the Electric line workers wanted a Union so they could have their "voices heard". Why we aren't exactly a prime example for a Union like The Senator mentioned I still feel that the secret ballot should be kept at the least to protect a persons privacy. Whether its decided by the employer or employees. I feel though that if it were up to the employee the intimidators might catch on to the fact that you want it to be a secret ballot because you are voting the other way.

I've seen Unions in several places. Some places they work and some they don't. Where I work currently is a prime example of why they don't work here and from what I've heard eliminating the secret ballot will make it easier for a Union to stampede itself all over a company or corporation or government entity. Whether or not that is true...?
 
Not at all, how can this enhance anything but corruption?

Well, just as the employee would have the right to choose to be represented by a union, they also have the same right to not be represented by a union. I have seen this done within the past 5 years when a union that was poorly representing their workers was decertified by the employees. I don't think that right would be taken away from the employee. As for sombody saying that card check allows for the unions to intimidate, I don't see how that can be when the employee is protected by anti discrimnation and harassment laws.
 
Well, just as the employee would have the right to choose to be represented by a union, they also have the same right to not be represented by a union. I have seen this done within the past 5 years when a union that was poorly representing their workers was decertified by the employees. I don't think that right would be taken away from the employee. As for sombody saying that card check allows for the unions to intimidate, I don't see how that can be when the employee is protected by anti discrimnation and harassment laws.

Yes the employee is protected by laws but laws don't mean safety from that crime. Murder's illegal but your ass can still get killed.
 
in my experience...Unions are nothing but greedy antiquated institutions who, in their current form, look out for themselves....here in CT, Sikorsky has had to deal with numerous strikes over the years and it seriously hurts productivity there....most companies today are very clear about being non-union when hiring
 
in my experience...Unions are nothing but greedy antiquated institutions who, in their current form, look out for themselves....here in CT, Sikorsky has had to deal with numerous strikes over the years and it seriously hurts productivity there....most companies today are very clear about being non-union when hiring

Or they are the only way a lot of workers have a voice for their rights and protection from their employers using them. My whole family have been part of unions in NYC and I must say, even with its flaws, that it helped them out tremendously. I also like to add that by no means are my family members rich so it's not like they join unions for their wages to go up massively. So no it doesn't have to do with greed. It has to do with maintaining your rights as a worker and making sure a company isn't taking advantage of you. With unions they get better benefits for health care, insurance, sometimes better pay, ect.


But as far as the elimination of the secret ballot, I just don't know if I can support that. When my father tried to unionize publically, he and his friends almost lost his job and my mother and her coworkers here in CA were threatened with job elimination if a union was to be formed. Her hospital actually sent in a spy to pose as one of the administrative workers to see if talk was going on about unionizing. Then again, it does say the workers will have a choice as to whether or not they want to use secret ballot or card checks.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing at all wrong with the concept of a union for the reasons gap5ewl mentioned.

The problem lies within the leadership of modern day unions. They're utterly oblivious to why their jobs are being outsourced and frankly they don't give a damn about most groups of people they want to get unionized, they just want to revitalize their waning power.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,153
Messages
21,907,325
Members
45,704
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"