How'd he win in the first place?

[Newtons Bit]

Around and around we go.

Because the time lapse between the submition of the petition and the secret ballot election allows employers a chance to intimidate and harass employees and generally run anti-union campaigns.

All card check does is make the union automatically form if that initial petition has more than 50% of the workers signed on. Notice that if 50+% are willing to sign on publicly, that means the secret ballot would return a result in favor of unionization. Why, in essence, would you force two elections if the workers are satisfied from the beginning?

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't that there is a secret ballot, it's that (you claim) it takes too long between the initial petition and the secret ballot.

How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?

 

[TraneWreck]

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem isn't that there is a secret ballot, it's that (you claim) it takes too long between the initial petition and the secret ballot.

How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?

Look, the problem is employer intimidation of union formation. It's been getting consistently worse over the past few decades.

One solution to that problem is Card Check. I think that it's better than the statuts quo, but if someone has a plan that serves the same purpose but maintains more secrecy, I'm all for it.

Card check also eliminates the added cost in providing a secret ballot election when the vote has, in essence, already been taken. That's by far a secondary concern, so as I said, if the right to unionize can be made available and employer intimidation can be inhibited, I have no real problem with further steps that inhibit potential intimidation from unions (though that really isn't a problem). As long as we're actually stopping union-based crime and not using the pretext of non-existent union-based intimidation to squash the ability of unions to form.

 

[Frank Newgent]

As long as we're actually stopping union-based crime and not using the pretext of non-existent union-based intimidation to squash the ability of unions to form.

Well that's no fun.

 

[Ziggurat]

As the union is running around and intimidating people, 30% can submit a petition to the NLRB that the union never gets to know about. This trumps the card check and there's a secret ballot.

That's only if the 30% of employees already know who each other are. That's a completely unrealistic scenario. What's actually going to happen if someone tries to collect such a petition is that whoever is collecting the signatures has to ask people whose opinion they don't know, and that will likely include union supporters who inform the union. The idea that you can keep this secret from the union is a rather fanciful notion.

But this is what I love: give me some example of this sort of union intimidation occuring. This sort of thing gets dealt with so swiftly by management and law enforcement. It just isn't a problem.

The fact that law enforcement and employers will try to act against intimidation does not mean it doesn't happen, and it does not mean it isn't a problem. It does happen, and it is a problem. Hell, it's not just intimidation. Actual union violence happens as well, including murder, such as the killing of Eddie York. So go on, tell York's widow and children that I'm just making **** up.

I've explained this 10 times. It does make a significant change

So your statement that it changes nothing was just bull ****. Good to know.

Card check is meant to curtail ACTUAL harassment and ACTUAL intimidation, as opposed to this fantasy nonsense you're babbling about.

What it's meant to do isn't what I care about. What I care about is what it will actually do. And what it will actually do is enable union intimidation and harassment of workers.

And there's no way for poor wittle corporate America to stand up against this...

It's not poor wittle corporate America I'm concerned about. Indeed, they can stand up to unions. Individual workers... not so much.

Please, you don't understand the law, you don't understand the facts (as evidenced by your continual failure to factually substantiate this idiocy about union intimidation), and so you're resorting to hollow bluster.

You're accusing me of hollow bluster, after having responded to one of my post with a post that contained nothing but strawmen? Yeah, sure, TW. Sure.

Is there currently a problem with rogue unions going around and intimidating workers into submitting petitions to the NLRB?

Why would there be when that won't help them, since they still MUST go through the secret ballot process? But you want to eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot, thereby giving them an incentive to do exactly that?

Do you have any evidence that during the lull between the petition and the secret ballot election these outside unions are intimidating workers?

Why would I provide evidence for something I never claimed? Again, we find that you are incapable of arguing without introducing straw men. The whole point of a secret ballot is that it prevents intimidation from being successful. Unions aren't going to try to intimidate workers when it won't work.

But with Card Check, the unions can retaliate against you for not signing the card. And then they can skip the secret ballot completely. Intimidation would become a successful strategy under card check. Your ONLY defense of this arrangement is that union intimidation doesn't happen. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It does happen. And it will happen a lot more if you give the unions another motive and a mechanism for doing so.

 

[WildCat]

This is just silliness. If the union has the name of the 30% who sign the petition after the union has formed, how are they going to intimidate a secret ballot vote? The person just says, "Hey, I didn't vote against you."

How do you sign a petition anonymously again? And why should the supporters of the status quo have to take affirmative action to prevent unionization?

 

[WildCat]

This And for the 50th time, the reason for card check is to avoid the elaborate election process where it isn't needed making it easier to form unions and inhibiting employers' ability to intimidate and harass.

I've documented that, but, shockingly, it's more information you've willfully avoided reading.

I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that corporations have the amazing ability to intimidate workers to vote a certain way on a secret ballot.

It's cute the way you dance around the issue and all, but if I wanted to see dancing I'd go to a club.

 

[WildCat]

The National Labor Relations Board certifies the signatures on the petition, not the union, not the employer. If 30% get together and send in the petition, the union doesn't have access to that.

You're going to organize 30% of the work force anonymously, without the other 70% finding out about it?

Surely you realize this is impossible, yes?

 

[WildCat]

Employers intimidate in the run up to the secret ballot election. They threaten workers by declaring pay cuts, layoffs, and other consequences if the union is voted in. They make them attend mandatory anti-union meetings and hire anti-union consultants to do the intimidation.

How do they intimidate them in the voting booth? This is your claim.

Anyone could say "oh yeah boss, I ain't voting for no union" and then vote "yes" in the secret ballot. Just like in many cases they sign the card and then vote "no" in secret. Which is really why the union wants card check to replace the secret vote.

Because let's face it, the only way to intimidate a voter is by threatening to hold him accountable for his vote. And without a name to attach to a vote, such accountability is impossible. Do you disagree?

 

[WildCat]

Nonsense. This is pure fantasy. Why wouldn't they be able to manage it? They manage it now with employers doing everything they can to intimidate workers from forming unions. Card Check just makes it easier.

Yes, when you can intimidate potential voters it gets much easier.

If 30% of the workforce doesn't oppose the union, then the union should be there. They don't have to tell anyone in the union what they're doing, they just have to submit signatures to the National Labor Relations Board. If a sizeable percentage of the workforce was upset with the card check, it could happen simultaneously.

Tell me again how you organize 30% of the workforce without the other 70% noticing?

 

[WildCat]

Because only the secret ballot allows people to vote their conscience without being retaliated against. By either the employer OR the union. So only the secret ballot is a reliable gauge of people's true opinions. Why is that not obvious to you?

It astonishes me that anyone can actually argue against this point.

 

[Unabogie]

How do you sign a petition anonymously again? And why should the supporters of the status quo have to take affirmative action to prevent unionization?

I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer. The NLRB does not disclose the list to either party. Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?

 

[WildCat]

As the union is running around and intimidating people, 30% can submit a petition

So you have to organize 30% of your fellow workers while under union intimidation?

You really don't see the problem here?

 

[Metullus]

I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer. The NLRB does not disclose the list to either party. Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?

Except that first one needs to circulate amongst his fellows asking for their signatures on the petition. This cannot be done anonymously...

 

[WildCat]

How about passing laws that speed up the time between the initial petition and the secret ballot as an alternative?

Because the goal here is for unions to grow via intimidation, since persuasion hasn't worked out so well for them in the last 30 years. That's why the card check provision is so sacrosanct.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Because the goal here is for unions to grow via intimidation.

That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.

 

[Unabogie]

Except that first one needs to circulate amongst his fellows asking for their signatures on the petition. This cannot be done anonymously...

Really? A stack of blank cards and a locked box won't do? Private meetings in the office with management? It's not that hard to envision a way for an employer to get his employees to fill out a card. My wife joined a union at a time when everyone was being intimidated not to form one, and everyone filled out cards on the downlow. If it can be done one way, why not the other?

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought he'd answered that over and over. The petition goes to the NLRB, not the union or the employer.

And I've already answered that. The union doesn't need to find out from the NLRB. They can find out from an employee.

Is that not the definition of anonymous, as far as "intimidation" is concerned?

Not even close.

 

[Unabogie]

That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.

My wife's two unions certainly intimidated her into health benefits and a pension. She resented the higher wages and security and cursed them when they got her thousands in back pay.

And then they sent the thugs to get her into a 401k. That stung.

 

[WildCat]

That is contrary to my (limited) experience with unions. I am curious as to why you believe this.

Because there's no other reason for the card check provision that makes any sense. At least to me.

Do you think secret unionization ballots are more accurate, less accurate, or about the same as a ballot that has your name attached?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Test my understanding.

As I understand it

Status quo:

• Employees sign their names on certificates
• Send them in to a non-employer, non-union, governmental third party for counting.
• If 30% or more asked for a union, they have a secret ballot.
• If more than 50% then vote union, they get a union.

The change (new rule in italics):

• Employees sign their names on certificates
• Send them in to a non-employer, non-union, governmental third party for counting.
• If more than 50% asked for a union, they get a union and the names are then revealed.
• If 30% or more asked for a union, they have a secret ballot.
• If more than 50% of the voters then vote union, they get a union.

If I'm wrong, please cite me something that shows me where.