How'd he win in the first place?

[TraneWreck]

How does that work with a secret ballot? How can an employer retaliate when the employer cannot know how the worker voted?

Honestly, are you just trying to be obstinate? I explained this fairly clearly and the link goes into even more detail.

1) Employers retaliate against vocal union supporters.
2) They retaliate at random, not caring how people voted, in order to cause a chilling effect over the entire workforce.
3) They punish the entire workforce, regardless of how individuals vote.
4) The aggressively intimidate and suppress union movements EVEN BEFORE the petitions are filed:

23% all ULP charges and 24% of serious charges—such as discharges for union activity, interrogation, and surveillance—were filed before the petition for an election was filed; confirming that employer campaigning begins even before a formal election campaign kicks into effect.

How can an employer retaliate when the petition hasn't even been filed yet?

These are questions that have very obvious answers. These answers have been given to you multiple times with data to support them. My guess is you will just ask the same pointless query again without reading the study or even attempting to figure out what's actually going on.

 

[stokes234]

Card check gives incentives for those things to happen, do you disagree? And it will happen, it's human nature.

But you can't show evidence that it does happen? You're just claiming that it does because you think people probably would do that, maybe. Gotcha.

 

[WildCat]

Honestly, are you just trying to be obstinate? I explained this fairly clearly and the link goes into even more detail.

1) Employers retaliate against vocal union supporters.
2) They retaliate at random, not caring how people voted, in order to cause a chilling effect over the entire workforce.
3) They punish the entire workforce, regardless of how individuals vote.
4) The aggressively intimidate and suppress union movements EVEN BEFORE the petitions are filed:



How can an employer retaliate when the petition hasn't even been filed yet?

You'd have a poit, if card check actually addressed this issue. But of course, it doesn't. And all of those methods will backfire on the employer in a secret ballot.

These are questions that have very obvious answers. These answers have been given to you multiple times with data to support them. My guess is you will just ask the same pointless query again without reading the study or even attempting to figure out what's actually going on.

The problem is that none of the problems you describe are prevented by card check. You're just adding another group (the union) to intimidate workers. Nothing you've posted makes a case for eliminating the secret ballot.

 

[WildCat]

But you can't show evidence that it does happen? You're just claiming that it does because you think people probably would do that, maybe. Gotcha.

My claim is if you give a group leverage they will use it. Once card check replaces the secret ballot the union can concentrate all of its power in getting those cards signed, whatever it takes.

The history of organized labor is one of violence and intimidation, on both sides. I don't think it's wise to further expose workers to such forces. No one here has been able to cite a single valid reason why card check should replace the secret ballot.

You do realize that card check is not the law now, don't you? As it stands today, a secret vote is still required to go union. So there's not nearly the incentive for the union to go all-out getting cards signed today. If card check passes (and thankfully it doesn't look like it has a chance), that restraint goes out the window.

 

[TraneWreck]

You'd have a poit, if card check actually addressed this issue. But of course, it doesn't. And all of those methods will backfire on the employer in a secret ballot.

Jeez. Card Check does solve quite a bit of it, as the most vicious anti-union stuff happens in the lag between the petition and the secret ballot vote.

And again, it doesn't matter that the ballot is secret because the employer announces retribution if the union is voted for. It doesn't matter who votes for it, the consequences will be applied to everyone.

Once again, this is very much non-complicated and obvious from the material you've been given. Your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand the discussion is bizarre.

The problem is that none of the problems you describe are prevented by card check. You're just adding another group (the union) to intimidate workers. Nothing you've posted makes a case for eliminating the secret ballot.

This is just pure nonsense. Card Check doesn't solve ALL problems, but it makes union formation easier. When unions are formed, they are the best source of support for workers to combat the rest.

And for the 20th time CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT.

 

[GreyArea]

Before the usual dance starts, the party has nothing to do with the humor.

Persuasion Partners. Hmmm... Is that what they're calling it now?

And his name is "Randy Hopper"?!? The jokes write themselves.

Hmm, I wonder if he still lives in-district

If he has moved to Madison with his persuasion partner, he's no longer in District 18.

 

[WildCat]

Jeez. Card Check does solve quite a bit of it, as the most vicious anti-union stuff happens in the lag between the petition and the secret ballot vote.

Card check doesn't address that at all. Why not just shorten the time before the secret ballot?

And again, it doesn't matter that the ballot is secret because the employer announces retribution if the union is voted for. It doesn't matter who votes for it, the consequences will be applied to everyone.

In that case card check solves nothing.

Once again, this is very much non-complicated and obvious from the material you've been given. Your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand the discussion is bizarre.

You're right, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how an employer can control how an employee fills out a secret ballot. And you don't seem capable of explaining it either.

This is just pure nonsense. Card Check doesn't solve ALL problems, but it makes union formation easier. When unions are formed, they are the best source of support for workers to combat the rest.

Of course it makes it easier, because it's much, much, much easier to retailiate against people when you know exactly how they voted.

And for the 20th time CARD CHECK DOES NOT ELIMINATE SECRET BALLOT.

Once again, YES IT DOES provided the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign the card.

If you were a random lay person I could write off as ignorance your claim that no one would ever sign a union card who didn't support a union, and pressure (of all types) has no bearing at all on whether or not they sign a card. But you're an attorney, and you know damn well that people have signed false confessions for crimes as serious as murder under pressure from police, so I can only assume you know damn well that card check will lead to a lot of workers signing cards even though they'd rather not join a union. I would think the pressure required to get someone to sign a union card is much less than that. The secret ballot is assurance that the vote actually reflects the will of the workers.

Again, you have made no case whatsoever that a secret ballot shouldn't be required in all instances.

 

[TraneWreck]

Card check doesn't address that at all. Why not just shorten the time before the secret ballot?

Finding an alternative solution to a problem does not mean that card check isn't also a solution.

But look at the statistics I gave you. Employers start these campaigns BEFORE the petition is filed. Card Check means the workers only need to gather their numbers once. Shortening the time would be better, but it would still require two elections, in essence, and allow time for intimidation.

In that case card check solves nothing.

Just really, really wrong.

You're right, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how an employer can control how an employee fills out a secret ballot. And you don't seem capable of explaining it either.

Start a poll. My guess is almost everyone at least understands the point, whether they agree with it or not.

If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?

Perhaps if you read the studies I gave you, this would make more sense. Or you can keep acting befuddled when the answers are very direct and obvious. Up to you.

Of course it makes it easier, because it's much, much, much easier to retailiate against people when you know exactly how they voted.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot. Card Check is not a vote, it isn't an election.

Once again, YES IT DOES provided the union can pressure 50% of the workers to sign the card.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.

If you were a random lay person I could write off as ignorance your claim that no one would ever sign a union card who didn't support a union, and pressure (of all types) has no bearing at all on whether or not they sign a card. But you're an attorney, and you know damn well that people have signed false confessions for crimes as serious as murder under pressure from police, so I can only assume you know damn well that card check will lead to a lot of workers signing cards even though they'd rather not join a union. I would think the pressure required to get someone to sign a union card is much less than that. The secret ballot is assurance that the vote actually reflects the will of the workers.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle. Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.

This doesn't work in the other direction until a union is certified.

But this is why none of you goofballs can substantiate your claims about union intimidation on these votes, but it's really easy to provide data from employer intimidation.

Again, you have made no case whatsoever that a secret ballot shouldn't be required in all instances.

Once more, your astonishing ignorance of the process makes you look like a fool.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.

And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it. Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process. Resources to understand this have been given to you, your ignorance is now willful.

 

[WildCat]

Finding an alternative solution to a problem does not mean that card check isn't also a solution.

You have nmade no case at all that card check is a solution to any problem except declining union membership. It's certainly not a solution for workers feeling the pressure.

But look at the statistics I gave you. Employers start these campaigns BEFORE the petition is filed. Card Check means the workers only need to gather their numbers once. Shortening the time would be better, but it would still require two elections, in essence, and allow time for intimidation.

In which case card check accomplishes nothing.

Start a poll. My guess is almost everyone at least understands the point, whether they agree with it or not.

You have shown no evidence at all that employers can influence a secret ballot.

If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?

They could use the same threat for card check. Card check does not address that at all.

Perhaps if you read the studies I gave you, this would make more sense. Or you can keep acting befuddled when the answers are very direct and obvious. Up to you.

The answer is obvious, and yet here you are arguing against the obvious.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot. Card Check is not a vote, it isn't an election.

Who you crappin'? The card check is the de facto vote in this circumstance.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.

The severe flaws in that plan have already been noted, with no rebuttle from you at all. Why not just have a secret balot in every case no matter what?

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle. Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.

Tell me about the Tooth Fairy for your next story...

This doesn't work in the other direction until a union is certified.

But this is why none of you goofballs can substantiate your claims about union intimidation on these votes, but it's really easy to provide data from employer intimidation.

You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience.

Once more, your astonishing ignorance of the process makes you look like a fool.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.
And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it. Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process. Resources to understand this have been given to you, your ignorance is now willful.

If those 50% really want to form a union there's no reason at all that a secret vote can't be held. All card check does, and IMHO what it is designed to do, is allow the union to pressure workers into signing in public what they wouldn't vote for in secret.

You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience

Because it.. is?

You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

Pot, kettle.

 

[TraneWreck]

You have nmade no case at all that card check is a solution to any problem except declining union membership. It's certainly not a solution for workers feeling the pressure.

You can only say this because you didn't read the study. More ignorance.

In which case card check accomplishes nothing.

Just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve some.

And yes, it does help with that problem. The earlier a union can be created, the more it can help battle against intimidation campaigns and retribution.

You have shown no evidence at all that employers can influence a secret ballot.

Haha, unreal. Yes, I really did. Again, you remain willfully ignornat on this score.

They could use the same threat for card check. Card check does not address that at all.

Of course they can. Once more, just because a solution doesn't solve ALL problems does not mean it doesn't solve ANY problem.

The answer is obvious, and yet here you are arguing against the obvious.

Amazing how little evidence your "obvious" has compared to all of the data in support of the "non-obvious." Curious thing, indeed.

Who you crappin'? The card check is the de facto vote in this circumstance.

No, it isn't. If 30% on a petition is all that's needed to get a vote, that AS A MATTER OF FACT tells you that no claims are made about the other 70%. You just need that number to start a vote.

Card check just causes automatic certification if >50% sign the petition, it says nothing about the other <50%.

The severe flaws in that plan have already been noted, with no rebuttle from you at all. Why not just have a secret balot in every case no matter what?

Jesus, this is so stupid. WHy have a second election if >50% said they want a union? If some number of employees are unhappy with that process, they can get a secret ballot election.

And yes, I've rebutted your idiocy, but like everything else, you choose to remain in blissfull ignorance. You still haven't read the studies I provided. That's VERY clear.

Tell me about the Tooth Fairy for your next story...

If it's so absurd, why don't you provide some data for your side?

You haven't shown any data at all about employer intimidation. In fact, you call the employer making their case for no union to be "intimidation". Guess what? Unions can talk to workers also, and they do. An employee feeling pressure from both sides may well tell them both they agree with them just to make them stop pressuring him, but a secret ballot allows him to vote his conscience.

More ignorance. I gave you a study that examined EVERY NLRB election over a multi-year period. Your choice to remain in the dark is the source of this endless, mindless repetition.

Secret ballots are great. Good thing Card Check doesn't change that process in any way. It just allows workers to choose a quicker route.

If those 50% really want to form a union there's no reason at all that a secret vote can't be held. All card check does, and IMHO what it is designed to do, is allow the union to pressure workers into signing in public what they wouldn't vote for in secret.

Your opinion is ignorant and wrong. You haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support it, you're just running on pure bias.

That's not "all" card check does, as multiple people have shown you. But you have no interest in learning, so you're just going to repeat the same incorrect ******** you started with.

You're an attorney, stop pretending you're a hick who just stepped off the turnip truck and had no idea that people could be pressured into signing a petition. Once again, people have confessed to murders they didn't commit under non-violent pressure from police, you certainly realize that many people can be pressured to sign petitions they don't really agree with.

This is irrelevant. There are many resources to deal with union pressure. Why don't you provide some data about that intimidation like I gave you for employer intimidation? Because this isn't really a problem. It hypothetically COULD be a problem, but it really isn't one.

If the union is intimidating people, they can go to their employer who can call a meeting, have 30% sign a petition, and get a secret ballot. Simple.

There are so many actual remedies to the problems you cite that don't involve getting rid of the secret ballot, and in fact getting rid of the secret ballot doesn't solve any problem at all, it just opens the door to new problems.

For god's sake. CARD CHECK DOES NOT "GET RID" OF SECRET BALLOTS.

You realize how many times you've repeated this same retarded lie?

 

[AlBell]

It's fun reading pap provided by shills for the Teamsters and/or UAW.

 

[DavidJames]

It's fun reading pap provided by shills for the Teamsters and/or UAW.

hmmm, one side making claims w/o evidence and calling the side providing evidence shills...where I have I heard that before?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's like the CT forum all over again.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I as an employer say, "If you guys vote for this union, I'm getting rid of your health care." You really are incapable of seeing how this would affect that secret vote?

Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

All they need is >50%, and those names are publicized. Because card check is involved at the petition level, that says nothing about how the rest would vote on a secret ballot.

And because an employee's response to the cards is known to the people collecting the cards, that response rate ALSO says nothing about how the people who did sign the cards would vote in a secret election. You have pointed out that employees might not sign the cards even if they would vote yes in a secret ballot. You have failed to even acknowledge that employees also might sign the cards even if they would vote no in a secret ballot.

No. Jesus, this is getting so stupid. EVEN IF >50% sign the cards, 30% of the workers can demand a secret ballot. This trumps the card check.

Except, as has already been explained to you, it's not much of a trump card at all.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics at play here. Unions cannot use coercion because they already are fighting a losing battle.

That is a laughable assertion.

Employers have a number of means to turn workers against the union, so if an employee is feeling pressure, they can go to the employer and receive a great deal of assistance.

And if they're feeling pressure from their employers, they can turn to the NLRB and receive a great deal of assistance too.

You're satisfied with the 30% card signing to force a secret ballot when it comes to overturning a union, yet you aren't satisfied with that level when it comes to creating the union. Your reasons for adopting such an asymmetry are, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Card Check operates at the petition level, not the secret ballot level. Right now, 30% sign, and they send it in for the NLRB to set up an election. All card check does is automatically create a union if >50% of workers sign that petition.

So before, unions had little incentive to intimidate workers into signing the petition, because if they couldn't get 30% on petitions without intimidation, they were unlikely to get 50% on the ballot. Now you've given them a motive for intimidation: they can skip the ballot completely if they can intimidate enough workers.

And a secret ballot can still be held if they want it.

No, TW. A secret ballot can still be held if enough of them manage to organize it. Your own arguments regarding employer intimidation indicate that the difference between these two statements is critical.

Secret ballots continue to be used all through the union process.

Obviously not, if they can be bypassed.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

How is it illega.. Oh wait, you haven't proven that either.

Also, I'm pretty sure you know the difference between legal and ethical.

 

[TraneWreck]

Is such a threat legal to make? Is such a threat legal to carry out?

It seems the answer to both is "yes". In which case, from the government's perspective, there's no reason to consider that a problem that needs any solution. After all, is it really preferable for employees to vote on unionization while ignorant about their employer's response?

You're basically justifying the enabling of illegal behavior because it "solves" a problem of legal behavior.

Jesus, you really have no clue what you're talking about. I mean, granted, I knew you were just talking out of your ass, but the bravado with which you say completely incorrect things is impressive.

Didn't even a small part of you think, "Maybe I should read the Nationa Labor Relations Act before I post this?"

The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights.

Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:

■Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
■Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.
■Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
■Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.
■Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
■Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.

http://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-obligations

I chose that example for a reason. Why should I read anything else you produce on this subject?

 

[Ziggurat]

How is it illega.. Oh wait, you haven't proven that either.

Indeed I have not proven it. Because it should be so obvious as to not need any proof.

Can employers stop providing employees health insurance? Why yes, yes they can. Can employers inform employees about possible future changes in benefits they offer? Why yes, yes they can. So what possible law is being broken here? Well, generally speaking, none. If some specific workers have some specific legal or contractual right to those benefits, well, the threat isn't credible in such a case, and other remedies are sufficient if the employer tries to act on it.

Also, I'm pretty sure you know the difference between legal and ethical.

It's not the government's role to enforce ethical behavior. And it's not government's place to keep people from threatening to take actions which are perfectly legal. indeed.

 

[WildCat]

Because it.. is?

And the remedy for that is elimination oif the secret ballot?

Pot, kettle.

Ecuse me?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Indeed I have not proven it. Because it should be so obvious as to not need any proof.

Can employers stop providing employees health insurance? Why yes, yes they can. Can employers inform employees about possible future changes in benefits they offer? Why yes, yes they can. So what possible law is being broken here? Well, generally speaking, none. If some specific workers have some specific legal or contractual right to those benefits, well, the threat isn't credible in such a case, and other remedies are sufficient if the employer tries to act on it.



It's not the government's role to enforce ethical behavior. And it's not government's place to keep people from threatening to take actions which are perfectly legal. indeed.

Sure, if you're not interested in anything remotely like equal rights. Or nonsense like that. And with that I'm going to just drop this argument. You don't think the government should enforce ethical behavior by employers (who by default have the power) with the employees. And I do. This argument is at an impasse.

@WildCat: It's not eliminated, you are pointedly not reading. Not worth arguing with you, either.