The GOOD Of The Unions!

[MI-Lineman]

SO.....Let me post this AGAIN....seems WI, and the rest of you union boys....and Girls....just can't get a real grip on this. Anybody got a...."Union" answer?

So.....
Seems all you union people...just don't want to actually "speak" about the REAL aspect of the EFCA.

Negating the Secret Ballot...by Card check. DOING AWAY, with a Secret Ballot Vote of ALL the company employees...to decide whether the company wants to go Union.

What's up with that? Do you union people...want to "organize" THAT much, that you would freely...throw out a Secret ballot vote...of ALL Company employees.

Tell me that's not True.
__________________

Well maybe Swamp it's because there are already a lot of previous posts on this subject and if ya look back over and over (like you're doin here) you keep suggesting the secret ballot is out but once again it is not! The option is the employees after they sign the petition. Givin employees options and rights doesn't really fit into the "capitalist's" scheme of things does it? When you say "ALL" company employees you mean supervision too or just "ALL" those who are the Laborers?

BTW! Thanks for not "choppin" up my thread. Instead you just derailed it! That's alright though, no one else seems to be benefiting from their Unions anyway????

[MI-Lineman]

For the dozenth time........


As The Christian Science Monitor has noted, "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot." Indeed, as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.
Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, has addressed the "myth" that the bill eliminates the secret ballot:

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.


I dont have a problem with it at all! It should be our choice not the employers! When you are union you are used to abiding by what the majority want......and I cant see a lot of brothers and sisters negating the secret ballot unless they feel the company is going to intimidate the employees and start their massive anti union campaigns bringing in the tough guy union busters. I know......you dont believe companies do that...........jackasses have wings and can fly too.....Who the hell do you think spread all the misinfo that EFCA takes away your right to a secret ballot

DON'T LOOK NOW E.L. BUT I THINK ONE FLEW OVER RUSSIA!!!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

I KNOW...OFF TOPIC BUT HELL SWAMP ALREADY DID THAT ANYWAY!

[wtdoor67]

Since you don't know shit about Unions let's talk about something you do know.

Let's see. I know. I know. Sushi! That's it let's talk about where we've had the best Sushi.


No wait. I got it. I got it. How about that Lindsey Lohan? Boy Gregg, do you think she's gonna make 10 days or so in jail? Ah come on Gregg. I know you have an opinion about this stuff.

[wtdoor67]

With all your wealth of experience, do you not regale us with your tales of linework in Saudi? I have entertained with a few of mine but I have never seen one of yours. Surely you had some interesting incidents.

Was it because you were undercover with the CIA?

Make some up then Gregg. Breaking camels, getting lost in the desert or something. You don't have to mention names or companies.

I have never conversed with a lineman without hearing some kind of tale. You're the exception.

If it was all secret for our govt., then I understand. Need to know etc.

Here's some suggested beginnings. "It was a sandy, windy night", "Once upon a camel", "the burning sands of Saudi", "You're not gonna believe this shit", "It was a long, long time ago. Come on Gregg, pick a title.

[electriklady]

Section 31 states labor laws require that election of officers is to be done by secret ballot. Yeah.....I know ......as I sit on the Board of Elections for our local....and just went through the election process. Been on it for about 9 years now. What does that have to do with there being the choice of a card check or a secret ballot election when organizing. CoErcion has always been the tactic of employers, to threaten, lie, and strongarm employees into not voting in a union, whether they want it or not. So dont talk to me about coercion. You said you only worked union for a short time, so obviously you have never seen the tactics that a company will employ to keep a union out, and even once a union is in, the tactics they will employ to intimidate union workers....especially young people that are uneducated on the "rules of the game", young people that dont know the history of why unions came about. Unions are not out be the ruler of the roost, they are in place to level the "playing field." A playing field that has a history of one sidedness, as far as hours, pay, benefits, and safety.....You say unions had their place at one time.......I got news for you Swamp, take away unions, and see what happens to the working class. See how much better things get, see where pay goes, see where safety goes, see where benefits go, down the tubes, thats where. As union members we have to fight tooth and nail as it is to keep what is fair for us now......what the hell would happen with no negotiating rights. If you think all employers out there even think twice about being fair to their employees, think again.......We are the bottom of the food chain to most companies, as is evident in the past couple of decades, as we lose more and more. Coersion.....what does a union have to threaten an unorganized group with.....if they lose they lose, they gonna take away your birthday? unlike the company who threatens people with loss of jobs. come on......be realistic. I know of owners who have threatened the union interested employees with closing the doors before allowing a union in. Now that is pretty frightening to people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Or how about the company that singles out the pro union employee, who speaks the truth about the company, and threatens to fire said employee for their pro union actions and verbage.

No group of people should have to be union if they dont want to......that is their choice....but they sure as hell should be able to unionize if they want without intimidation, threats, lies, and stalling tactics, which is what is used by companies who force and election(at the organzing stage) which gives them time to play their games.

You talk like us union members are greedy MFers, we arent, we are fighting to keep what is fair, for our contribution to the well being of the corporations we work for. We want rules, that apply both ways, not just for the individuals who get intoxicated with the power afforded them by a job in management....who feel that they can walk all over the common everyday "lifeblood" of a company, the down in the dirt, sweat pourin off ya, give it all ya got......worker.

[electriklady]

So...obviously...you understand the "Secret Ballot" huh.

What's your Problem...with gettin your 51% "card Check"...then...Hold a SECRET BALLOT Vote with ALL the company employees you want to organize??

You neglected to mention, anything about...Cohersion...BOTH ways...being NEGATED by the SECRET BALLOT!

Try and "Organize" ANYTIME...ANYWHERE!!
AND..Do it...BY the Secret Ballot Vote. That's sortta somethin "Americans" BELIEVE in. "Free From Intimadation"...from ALL Sides. Once ya close that curtain.

Sorry EL...once again, your "defense" of the Card Check BULLSHIT...is just that. BULLSHIT.

It hasnt been free from intimidation since the conception of organized labor. What planet do you live on? Ya know if you had any real experience with a union, and actually worked union for any length of time, or was a person contemplating working in a union shop, I could understand your reason for argueing this point. Go back and reread my post....I mentioned coercion....that it comes from the employers.....as I said....what can the union use to coerce employees into wanting a union.....they are no threat to an employee........it is the employer who holds the cards......the ability to take away a persons way of making a living, feeding his/her family, having a home. Card check will speed up the process, so the EMPLOYER does not have time to bring in all the threats, intimidation, and anti-union propaganda, and simply stall the process which should not be their right. It is a right for employees to unionize, and companies have been interfering for years....with no consequences. Again EFCA levels the playing field just a bit.......and forces the companies to "take their human resources seriously."

[electriklady]

From Forbes..............

If GM Collapses, Don't Blame The Union

Joann Muller, 12.05.08, 06:00 AM EST
Once bitter enemies, the Detroit Three and Ron Gettelfinger's UAW have long since buried the hatchet.

Unionized autoworkers are a favorite scapegoat for the problems facing U.S. automakers. Their job security guarantees and gold-plated benefits have surely cost General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler a bundle over the past few decades. Indeed, the domestics' historically high labor costs are among the reasons they haven't been able to compete with Japanese rivals, and why Detroit CEOs were back on Capitol Hill again Thursday asking for $34 billion in taxpayer loans to survive.
But the U.S. automakers probably would have collapsed by now if not for the concessions made by the United Auto Workers union over the past three years.



Once bitter enemies, the Detroit Three and the UAW have long since buried the hatchet and are now working together to close the wage gap with Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ), Nissan (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people ) and Honda (nyse: HMC - news - people ) through various productivity improvements and more flexible work rules, for instance.
The union has made some major concessions. Two biggies last year: The UAW agreed to cap the cost of retiree health care through creation of an independent trust fund and agreed to cut wages in half, to $14 an hour, for new hires in non-assembly jobs (20% of the workforce). More concessions came this week when the union agreed to end a controversial "jobs bank" program, which pays workers even when there are no vehicles to build. The union also said it would allow car makers to extend their scheduled payments to the health care trust fund. Importantly, UAW President Ronald Gettelfinger also said the union is ready to renegotiate additional contract terms.
Now, the playing field is just about level--or will be once the economy recovers.



There's the rub: Until car sales rebound, it's tough for the Detroit automakers to realize the savings from those new labor agreements. Sales are so depressed that none of the companies is able to hire new workers at the lower rate, for instance.
Detroit's current average labor cost is about $71 per hour, compared to $47 an hour at Toyota, which has no unions. But it's misleading to suggest that Detroit autoworkers are paid $71 an hour. About $17 of that is the cost of health care insurance for retirees. General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) has 442,000 retirees in North America, four times as many current employees. Toyota has only 371 retirees in the U.S.; Honda has 2,400.



What do autoworkers really make? Detroit's hourly workers earn $28 an hour, or $57,000 a year. (Toyota workers make $25.) Benefits and payroll taxes bring the total cost per worker up to $54 an hour, versus $47 at Toyota. Under a breakthrough labor contract in 2007, new hires in non-assembly jobs will be paid only $14 an hour and will receive less generous benefits, which will narrow that remaining gap considerably.

Not everyone believes the union has given its pound of flesh yet, however. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., home to non-union Nissan factories, said at Thursday's Senate Banking Committee hearing that the UAW must also forgo company-paid supplemental unemployment benefits (worth $450 per week for laid-off workers) and be willing to accept company stock as a partial payment for the car-makers' retiree health care obligation. It's the only way GM can get bondholders to agree to a recapitalization, he said.
GM chief executive G. Richard Wagoner defended the UAW, saying, "Ron Gettelfinger has done more to address the competitive issues in our industry in the last three years than anybody has in the last 30 or 40 years."
Which means GM can't use labor as an excuse any more.

[MI-Lineman]

And the union, REALLY needs to do AWAY...with Honest, Secret Ballot Choice...don't they...

IT'S BEEN ANSWERED OVER AND OVER BUT YOU CONTINUALLY PUT AN O'RIELY SPIN ON IT!!! It gives THOSE who want the Union the choice to vote or not, NOT THE F$CKIN PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT THEIR EMPLOYEES SIGNIN THE DAMN CARDS LET ALONE BRINGIN THE UNION IN!!

TAKIN THE VOICE AWAY FROM THE WORKIN MAN AGAIN!! THAT'S ALL YOU'RE ABOUT AIN'T IT!!

BTW!! THANKX FOR YET AGAIN RUININ ANOTHER THREAD!!

[topgroove]

The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers. Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted. The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system

[electriklady]

Actually that was dear old Ronald Regan who we can thank for the true beginning of organized union busting.........


Ronald Reagan's War on Labor



Amidst the continued outpouring of praise for Ronald Reagan, let's not forget that he was one of the most anti-labor presidents in U.S. history, a role model for the virulently anti-labor George W. Bush.
Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.

Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.

He had little apparent reason to fear labor politically, with opinion polls at the time showing that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans and that nearly half of those who belonged to the unions had voted for him in 1980 and again in 1984.

Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.

Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."

Reagan gave dedicated union foes direct control of the federal agencies that were designed originally to protect and further the rights and interests of workers and their unions.

Most important was Reagan's appointment of three management representatives to the five-member National Labor Relations Board which oversees union representation elections and labor-management bargaining, They included NLRB Chairman Donald Dotson, who believed that "unionized labor relations have been the major contributors to the decline and failure of once-healthy industries" and have caused "destruction of individual freedom."

Under Dotson, a House subcommittee found,the board abandoned its legal obligation to promote collective bargaining, in what amounted to "a betrayal of American workers."

The NLRB settled only about half as many complaints of employers' illegal actions as had the board during the previous administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter, and those that were settled upheld employers in three-fourths of the cases. Even under Republican Richard Nixon, employers won only about one-third of the time.

Most of the complaints were against employers who responded to organizing drives by illegally firing union supporters. The employers were well aware that under Reagan the NLRB was taking an average of three years to rule on complaints, and that in any case it generally did no more than order the discharged unionists reinstated with back pay. That's much cheaper than operating under a union contract.

The board stalled as long before acting on petitions from workers seeking union representation elections and stalled for another year or two after such votes before certifying winning unions as the workers' bargaining agents. Under Reagan, too, employers were allowed to permanently replace workers who dared exercise their legal right to strike.

Reagan's Labor Department was as one-sided as the NLRB. It became an anti-labor department, virtually ignoring, for instance, the union-busting consultants who were hired by many employers to fend off unionization. Very few consultants and very few of those who hired them were asked for the financial disclosure statements the law demands. Yet all unions were required to file the statements that the law required of them (and that could be used to advantage by their opponents). And though the department cut its overall budget by more than 10 percent, it increased the budget for such union-busting activities by almost 40 percent.

Union-busting was only one aspect of Reagan's anti-labor policy. He attempted to lower the minimum wage for younger workers, ease the child labor and anti-sweatshop laws, tax fringe benefits, and cut back job training programs for the unemployed. He tried to replace thousands of federal employees with temporary workers who would not have civil service or union protections.

The Reagan administration all but dismantled programs that required affirmative action and other steps against discrimination by federal contractors, and seriously undermined worker safety. It closed one-third of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's field offices, trimmed its staff by more than one-fourth and decreased the number of penalties assessed against employers by almost three-fourths.
Rather than enforce the law, the administration sought "voluntary compliance" from employers on safety matters - and generally didn't get or expect it. The administration had so tilted the job safety laws in favor of employers that union safety experts found them virtually useless.
The same could have been said of all other labor laws in the Reagan era. A statement issued at the time by the presidents of several major unions concluded it would have been more advantageous for those who worked for a living to ignore the laws and return "to the law of the jungle" that prevailed a half-century before.
Their suggestion came a little late. Ronald Reagan had already plunged labor-management relations deep into the jungle.

Copyright © Dick Meister