How'd he win in the first place?

Unabogie said:
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?
Click to expand...

So in other words, intimidation doesn't work if they don't know your true intent. Sounds like a perfect argument for secret ballots.

Oh, wait....
 
quixotecoyote said:
[*]If more than 50% asked for a union, they get a union and the names are then revealed.
Click to expand...

The unions can go around distributing and collecting the cards. That means that the union knows who has signed the cards from the start. And employees know that unions know who signed the cards and who didn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
The unions can go around distributing and collecting the cards. That means that the union knows who has signed the cards from the start. And employees know that unions know who signed the cards and who didn't.
Click to expand...

Is that the way it works? That unions can look at and see who signed cards asking for a union and thus can go harass people who haven't signed cards in favor until they have 50% and then send them in?
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
Is that the way it works? That unions can look at and see who signed cards asking for a union and thus can go harass people who haven't signed cards in favor until they have 50% and then send them in?
Click to expand...

Both times my wife joined and the one time I joined, neither of us were ever directly contacted by the union nor were we pressured or even spoken to by other members. Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?
 
Unabogie said:
Both times my wife joined and the one time I joined, neither of us were ever directly contacted by the union nor were we pressured or even spoken to by other members. Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?
Click to expand...

Or even evidence of how the process works. I'm not taking a position. I mean, my bias is pro-union, and I'll own that up front, but the process should minimize intimidation options from either side.

So far we have actual evidence of employer intimidation, and only speculation that the proposed fix might possibly be a process that unions might use to intimidate.

First I need to know enough about the proposed change to see if its feasible for unions to intimidate.
 
Unabogie said:
Perhaps some evidence of thuggery would be in order?
Click to expand...

Clearly you're not paying attention to the rules.

Only those who argue in favor of unions are required to provide evidence of their claims.

If you're anti-union, you can throw around words like "union thugs" and "intimidate" and "violence" without being bothered to actually substantiate anything you say.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Or even evidence of how the process works. I'm not taking a position. I mean, my bias is pro-union, and I'll own that up front, but the process should minimize intimidation options from either side.

So far we have actual evidence of employer intimidation, and only speculation that the proposed fix might possibly be a process that unions might use to intimidate.

First I need to know enough about the proposed change to see if its feasible for unions to intimidate.
Click to expand...

I can only speak to my personal experience. When a movie my wife was working on "went union", meaning the producers agreed to abide by union rules and admit workers into the union, she was given the opportunity to join or not join. She was not forced to join or pay dues in order to keep working, but as the union wages were so much better and she could get health insurance, she joined. No intimidation or coercion involved. Then, after joining, it became apparent that she was supposed to get the union wages for the time she worked on the film. The union got her thousands in back pay and she did not have to sue and confront the production company. This was done for her as part of being represented by a group rather than as an individual.

The second time her work "went union", she was working in animation and the animation house sent out brochures explaining all the ways their benefits were superior to the union benefits. None of which was true. No one from the union contacted her. None of her fellow workers asked her how she voted. But the vast majority was happy to join the Animators Guild and my wife immediately got better health insurance, higher pay, and better retirement options.

Now, I'm not sure where the intimidation is supposed to be occurring, and my anecdote is not data, but I sure would love to see evidence that others are being treated differently.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Status quo:


  • Union thugs organizers go from employee to employee, maybe to their homes, with union cards to sign
  • 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.
Click to expand...
I added a step you forgot. That step may or may not include a mysterious epidemic of slashed tires, smashed mailboxes, phone threats, etc that seems only to strike workers who refused to sign the card...
 
Newtons Bit said:
This was the first non-blog google result for "Union Intimidation":
http://www.nrtw.org/blog/video-union-intimidation-action

There were many more.
Click to expand...

That's not a blog? Surely it is also not an unbiased source, calling itself the "right to work" organization? Got anything better?

Again, having actually been in a union and having quite a lot of experience with.them, this whole charge seems divorced from reality. And I hope you will present something other than videos of jerks in skirmishes in heated settings. Oh, and unfortunately I can't watch video right now so apologies.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
That's not a blog? Surely it is also not an unbiased source, calling itself the "right to work" organization? Got anything better?

Again, having actually been in a union and having quite a lot of experience with.them, this whole charge seems divorced from reality. And I hope you will present something other than videos of jerks in skirmishes in heated settings. Oh, and unfortunately I can't watch video right now so apologies.
Click to expand...

It's a CNN video, so it's not as fringe as you'd think from the source. However, it's about union intimidation to enforce a strike. Since I never said union intimidation never happens, this was about enforcing an existing union enforcing strike by going after scabs rather than people trying to create a union, and the sources for there being significant union intimidation at all were "experts say," it isn't good evidence.

They need to show that union intimidation is a common enough occurrence in the formation of unions that we should be more worried about a rule change that could possibly enable that than the endemic employer intimidation already in evidence.
 
quixotecoyote said:
They need to show that union intimidation is a common enough occurrence in the formation of unions that we should be more worried about a rule change that could possibly enable that than the endemic employer intimidation already in evidence.
Click to expand...
What employer intimidation already in evidence? I've asked TraneWreck several times to explain how an employer can intimidate an employee in the voting booth filling out a secret ballot. Maybe you can explain it?
 
WildCat said:
What employer intimidation already in evidence? I've asked TraneWreck several times to explain how an employer can intimidate an employee in the voting booth filling out a secret ballot. Maybe you can explain it?
Click to expand...

And I've given you multiple resources. This is how you argue, it's now happened on several threads. You're given evidence and you just keep repeating yourself over and over intentionally ignoring what was provided. You can either deal with it or accept it, but you cannot argue that it hasn't been explained.

Here is one of the studies again:

It has become standard practice for workers to be subjected by corporations to threats, interrogation, harassment, surveillance, and retaliation for supporting a union. An analysis of the 1999-2003 data on NLRB election campaigns finds that:

63%of employers interrogate workers in mandatory one-on-one meetings with their supervisors about support for the union;
54% of employers threaten workers in such meetings;
57% of employers threaten to close the worksite;
47% of employers threaten to cut wages and benefits; and
34% of employers fire workers.
Employers have increased their use of more punitive tactics (“sticks”) such as plant closing threats and actual plant closings, discharges, harassment, disciplinary actions, surveillance, and alteration of benefits and conditions. While at the same time, employers are less likely to offer “carrots,” such as granting of unscheduled raises, positive personnel changes, bribes, special favors, social events, promises of improvement, and employee involvement programs.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...ition-to-organizing-20090520-758-116-116.html

That's just from the summary. You're welcome to read the whole thing.

Regardless of the result and regardless of who voted, employers retaliate. Mostly they go after the employees that had a higher profile in the organization, but often times they intimidate at random because of the chilling effect it has on the rest of the workforce.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Evidence of what?
Click to expand...


WildCat said:
Union thugs organizers go from employee to employee, maybe to their homes, with union cards to sign; That step may or may not include a mysterious epidemic of slashed tires, smashed mailboxes, phone threats, etc that seems only to strike workers who refused to sign the card...
Click to expand...

this
 
TraneWreck said:
And I've given you multiple resources. This is how you argue, it's now happened on several threads. You're given evidence and you just keep repeating yourself over and over intentionally ignoring what was provided. You can either deal with it or accept it, but you cannot argue that it hasn't been explained.

Here is one of the studies again:


http://www.americanrightsatwork.org...ition-to-organizing-20090520-758-116-116.html

That's just from the summary. You're welcome to read the whole thing.

Regardless of the result and regardless of who voted, employers retaliate. Mostly they go after the employees that had a higher profile in the organization, but often times they intimidate at random because of the chilling effect it has on the rest of the workforce.
Click to expand...
How does that work with a secret ballot? How can an employer retaliate when the employer cannot know how the worker voted?
 
quixotecoyote said:
this
Click to expand...
Card check gives incentives for those things to happen, do you disagree? And it will happen, it's human nature.

In fact, this is exactly the point of card check - to accomplish through public intimidation what cannot be accomplished by a secret vote.

There is no reason in the world that the employer abuse TraneWreck is worried about cannot be rectified while still mandating a secret ballot.

Do you likewise think that votes for public office should have a name attached?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom