How'd he win in the first place?

[WildCat]

More anti-union liars, probably a bunch of teabaggers. I bet the union guys just showed up at their door to sell them girl scout cookies!

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sure this is the only time it ever happened...

http://www.identitytheftblog.info/identity-theft/retaliatory-identity-theft/1402/

So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.

 

[Ziggurat]

So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.

That's quite the walk-back from your previous position.

 

[WildCat]

So an organization dissatisfied with their union runs a decertification campaign as allowed by law, decertifies the union, and then wins a retaliation lawsuit.

Looks to me like the system works great from that end.

You claimed there was never any intimidation, I have just documented that there is.

So why not have a secret ballot vote in every case?

 

[Frank Newgent]

You are not answering the question.

It seems rational to assume that you have no objective evidence showing the practice of union thugs intimidating people into signing up to join a union.

I'm not claiming that this is happening now, I'm claiming it will happen once there is incentive to do so. And this proposed law provides such incentive.

Not sure I understand this fear unless, of course, you mean union membership no longer contingent on having a job.

Can you think of a reason a vote by secret ballot shouldn't be used in every case, just so we know the cards accurately reflect the will of the workers?

Sounds great if such elections were expedited elections.

If political opponents compromised and agreed to secret ballot elections conducted expeditiously would you agree to support the rights of workers who seek to organize?

 

[TraneWreck]

That's quite the walk-back from your previous position.

You claimed there was never any intimidation, I have just documented that there is.

So why not have a secret ballot vote in every case?

Nope, I said it wasn't really a problem. It isn't. You found one case.

I gave a study of EVERY NLRB ELECTION over a 5 year period.

Surely even you two goofballs can see the difference in data.

But most importantly, the issue with employer intimidation, as I've said multiple times and supported with empircal data, is that it's poorly enforced and the chilling effect goes far beyond any individual illegal acts.

Now be my guest, show a problem with enforcement of rules against union abuse. You just gave me an example that showed the system to be working fine.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here is some more empirical evidence that will be ignored by the usual suspects.

Hey, I've got an idea!!! Why don't we see how card check works where it's actually been implimented:

In the spring of 2009 the School of Labor and Employment Relations (LER) at the
University of Illinois conducted a study of the state’s nearly six-year old mandated
majority authorization process for organizing employees in the public sector. The project
was inspired by the national debate surrounding the proposed federal Employee Free
Choice Act. Corporate allegations that the national law will allow employees to be
coerced into signing “card’ or “petitions” motivated LER to conduct an objective
assessment of how Illinois’ law is working. The results of the study unambiguously
revealed that the majority sign-up provision was used extensively without hint of union
or employer abuse.

In brief, from 2003-2009, 21,197 public sector workers employed in state, county,
municipal and educational institutions voluntarily joined a union. Most importantly,
contrary to business claims, in nearly eight hundred petition cases, there was not a single
confirmed incidence of union coercion.

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/efca_illinois.pdf

Although Illinois is known for its tame political culture, so maybe it's just local politeness.

It is illegal now for unions or their agents to coerce employees
to sign a union authorization card. With the Employee
Free Choice Act, it will still be illegal—and any
person who breaks the law will face serious penalties.
Academic studies show that, with majority sign-up
as compared to NLRB election campaigns, employees
report less pressure from co-workers to support the union
and less pressure from employers to oppose the union.
In the first 70 years of the National Labor Relations Act,
only 42 cases found fraud or coercion by unions in the
submittal of authorization cards. By contrast, there were
29,000 documented cases of intimidation or coercion by
employers in 2007 alone.

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm

Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

"But, but, this one time someone from a union did something..."

 

[Skeptic]

Does protesting outside someones house, or ringing the doorbell and talking to their wife make you a "thug"?

No, when you do it alone as part of (say) taking a survey. Yes, when you are one of a group of "activists" that gang up on the private house unannounced.

 

[Ziggurat]

Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

It's sunk in. The message: secret ballots work. They make union intimidation mostly pointless. And as your own references to the difficulty in enforcing laws against employers shows, making illegal behavior pointless is much more effective at preventing it than trying to punish it.

So, given how effective secret ballots are in preventing unions intimidation (something your own numbers show), why on earth do you want to give unions a mechanism to bypass it?

 

[TraneWreck]

It's sunk in. The message: secret ballots work. They make union intimidation mostly pointless. And as your own references to the difficulty in enforcing laws against employers shows, making illegal behavior pointless is much more effective at preventing it than trying to punish it.

So, given how effective secret ballots are in preventing unions intimidation (something your own numbers show), why on earth do you want to give unions a mechanism to bypass it?

Yet secret ballot doesn't do **** to stop harassment and intimidation from management, interesting.

But that's beside the point. We have another feeble attempt by you to slink around the facts. I think I should have bolded more. Go read the first excerpt again.

Card Check does not lead to union intimidation. It's documented, it's fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet secret ballot doesn't do **** to stop harassment and intimidation from management, interesting.

I didn't say that (but you're back to your old habits, I see). I'm sure it does a lot to reduce employer intimidation.

 

[TraneWreck]

I didn't say that (but you're back to your old habits, I see). I'm sure it does a lot to reduce employer intimidation.

No, at no point did I accuse you of saying that.

That's the implication of the statistics. You claim secret ballot is the reason there have only been 42 confirmed incidents of union harassment, yet there were 29,000 documented cases of harassment and intimidation from management IN 2007 ALONE.

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, at no point did I accuse you of saying that.

That's the implication of the statistics. You claim secret ballot is the reason there have only been 42 confirmed incidents of union harassment, yet there were 29,000 documented cases of harassment and intimidation from management IN 2007 ALONE.

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

Unless you have statistics to indicate the level of management harassment in the absence of a secret ballot, your claim is obviously unsupported. Basic logic fail.

 

[TraneWreck]

Unless you have statistics to indicate the level of management harassment in the absence of a secret ballot, your claim is obviously unsupported. Basic logic fail.

Haha, what?

Under the current system, that includes secret ballot, there were 29,000 incidents of harassment from management in 2007. That means secret ballot ain't stopping the bosses from acting up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Haha, what?

Under the current system, that includes secret ballot, there were 29,000 incidents of harassment from management in 2007. That means secret ballot ain't stopping the bosses from acting up.

I never claimed secret ballots stopped any employer misbehavior. I claimed it reduces employer misbehavior compared to what it would be without a secret ballot. That this is so should be obvious. That this was my point was clear. And your response did nothing to address this. Your statistics do nothing to invalidate my claim. This was an elementary mistake on your part. Whether the mistake was in your reading comprehension or your basic grasp of logic I cannot say, nor do I care.

 

[TraneWreck]

I never claimed secret ballots stopped any employer misbehavior. I claimed it reduces employer misbehavior compared to what it would be without a secret ballot. That this is so should be obvious. That this was my point was clear. And your response did nothing to address this. Your statistics do nothing to invalidate my claim. This was an elementary mistake on your part. Whether the mistake was in your reading comprehension or your basic grasp of logic I cannot say, nor do I care.

Look, you have been absolutely demolished over the course of these last pages. You have not provided a single citation to support your claims, you're just babbling and then getting smacked by the actual studies.

Obviously I know secret ballots don't need to stop 100% of the intimidation to have value, just like card check isn't invalidated by the one or two incidents of violence that your anemic side dredged up. That's why I said this:

Thus, secret ballots don't do **** to stop management from harassing people, unless you want to argue that 29,000 is a good result.

I recognized the very fact that you're claiming I ignored in the very statement that began this exchange. You have chosen to argue that it's a good result; things would be way worse without secret ballot.

But, of course, this is yet another point you have completely failed to prove. It's entirely possible, for example, that secret ballot elections actually INCREASE the incidents of intimidation and harassment from management. If the ballots were public, they could just retaliate against those that supported the union. Because it's secret, they retaliate against everyone.

Now, if I were the sort of person who thought that making **** up in front of a computer was the proper way to argue, I would just say that's my position. But people study these things. They examine the facts and draw conclusions. If you want to support the idea that secret ballots have stopped EVEN ONE incident of violence, go ahead and prove it. Show us the data. Because as I said, it may very well CAUSE harassment.

So much easier to whine and complain about people not understanding the workings of you beautiful mind, though...

So, what's you point? State it clearly and provide factual support. This, of course, won't happen, because your actual position really isn't that different from the position you imagine I'm accusing you of holding. So long as you remain vague and never substantiate your claims, you can always contend that you have some awesome argument hidden from view that no one is dealing with. This is, of course, ********.

 

[WildCat]

If political opponents compromised and agreed to secret ballot elections conducted expeditiously would you agree to support the rights of workers who seek to organize?

I have no issuea at all with speeding up the process, my one and only issue is the elimination of secret ballots in instances where >50% of the workers have signed cards.

I think a secret ballot vote should be used in every single case. This protects workers from being pressured by both the union and management.

Imagine if this was reversed, and management could call workers into their offices one by one (perhaps even as a condition of a job offer) to have them sign a petition against unionization, and unions would be prohibited from any organization attempts if >50% of the workers signed such a petition. The unions and I suspect those here defending card check would cry foul, and rightly so, because all this does is open the door to intimidation by management.

 

[WildCat]

Here is some more empirical evidence that will be ignored by the usual suspects.

Hey, I've got an idea!!! Why don't we see how card check works where it's actually been implimented:


http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/efca_illinois.pdf

Although Illinois is known for its tame political culture, so maybe it's just local politeness.

Government workers in Illinois? Seriously?

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/brokensystem.cfm

Read that bolded part a couple of times, really let it sink in.

"But, but, this one time someone from a union did something..."

Once again, what's the incentive to do so without card check? Why not just have a secret ballot vote to confirm? What's the harm?

 

[stokes234]

I have no issuea at all with speeding up the process, my one and only issue is the elimination of secret ballots in instances where >50% of the workers have signed cards.

I think a secret ballot vote should be used in every single case. This protects workers from being pressured by both the union and management.

Imagine if this was reversed, and management could call workers into their offices one by one (perhaps even as a condition of a job offer) to have them sign a petition against unionization, and unions would be prohibited from any organization attempts if >50% of the workers signed such a petition. The unions and I suspect those here defending card check would cry foul, and rightly so, because all this does is open the door to intimidation by management.

My bold. Are you sure this is how it works? From wikipedia:

"If over 50% of the employees sign an authorization card requesting a union, the employer can voluntarily choose to waive the secret ballot election process and just recognize the union. The other exception is a last resort, which allows the NLRB to order an employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards if the employer has engaged in unfair labor practices that make a fair election unlikely."

Wiki isn't always right of course, but it says that the 50% card check only prevents a secret ballot if the employer has engaged in unfair practices. Is this correct?

 

[TraneWreck]

Once again, what's the incentive to do so without card check? Why not just have a secret ballot vote to confirm? What's the harm?

Look, I have nothing against secret ballots, but the answer is that there is no harm to card check. The data proves it.

Secret ballots are still allowed with card check. Since there is no union intimidation is states that use card check or similar systems, the harm you're desperate to avoid doesn't exist.

The real problem, as is more than evidenced by the actual data, is employer intimidation. Card check eliminates a lot of that, therefore it's a better system than the status quo. That does not mean, however, that it's a perfect system. If you have other ideas for dealing with the ACTUAL problem, as opposed to the imaginary problem of union intimidation, I'm all ears.