Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To answer the first question, no. To the second, maybe I will. But I think any ballot has to be secret. That seems to be the issue here, not mail-in vs on-site secret ballots. I do not think the following is any way to do a "vote".
Paid staff to collect the cards, on the spot in front of the organizer decision, a call at the end of 60 days to see if they changed their mind. Perhaps this poster kept the information confidential, and didn't hold a grudge against his own co-workers for saying "no", but they system is ripe with opportunities for that happening.
You are suggesting more layers of difficulty. There are guidelines in the EFCA I strongly suspect will address your concerns. All the labor people I have been associated with over the last 30+ years are carrying the yoke of the unethical behaviour of the 70's and before. I can say that overall they are BETTER than the managers I was associated with, and both were good but I found management stepping ovet the line much more often.
I would be happy with personal visits, scantioned by the NRLB, sealed envelope inside another envelope and counted by the NRLB. The secret ballot system as it is now is a disaster due to the intimidation the companies use. I think once we have been invited in the company should have to sit on their hands and be completely neutral with neither party knowing who and what when the ballot is counted. Right now labor DOES NOT GET A FAIR SHOT.
There is a reason labor is shrinking, and it is not because the employers ate treating their employees well. People are scared.
I am the only one posting here on this issue that has lived it both ways. The rest of you talking down card check have not lived it so I question if you know what the hell you are talking about.
Would you rather trust a Wall Street Banker or a Union President? Think about it.
Neither. They're both doing the same thing - obviously a broad brush statement, but I don't assume the union guy has altruistic motives..
`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).
Nobody makes you join a union if you do not wish to do so. In fact being a union member myself, I kind of like being in an "exclusive club" where I get decent pay and really awesome benefits including:
FREE Medical Care for me AND my dependents ($30 co-pay for Dr and $5 for prescriptions).
FREE Life insurance at 1X salary and $20,000 for each dependent and option to purchase up to 9X salary with NO physical
FREE dental insurance for me AND my dependents
FREE vision care for me AND my dependents- exams and new glasses every 2 years.
3 weeks of vacation, 4 personal holidays, 4 paid leave days and 1 unpaid leave day
So you see that "membership has its privledges".
Yes, it's all free
And all you had to do is force your employer to pay you more than you are worth.
And all you had to do is force your employer to pay you more than you are worth.
Nobody put a gun to managements head and made them sign a contract. Nothing is free, those benefits are tax free pay for his work. The company would have paid it in salary had we wanted.
Who are YOU to say he was over paid. You do not know what he does, nor do YOU know how much he is paid, nor do you have any idea how difficult his skill is to master.
Nobody put a gun to managements head and made them sign a contract. Nothing is free, those benefits are tax free pay for his work. The company would have paid it in salary had we wanted.
Who are YOU to say he was over paid. You do not know what he does, nor do YOU know how much he is paid, nor do you have any idea how difficult his skill is to master.
You sir appear to be a jealous union hater.
Regardless of coastal rap's position on unions, this thread is about whether workers should have the right to have secret ballots when choosing whether or not to unionize. I really cannot see why unions want to get rid of secret ballots. I think that how I vote, no matter what venue, should be private unless I choose to share that information. So why do the unions want to take that right away when it comes to choosing or not choosing to unionize?
Regardless of coastal rap's position on unions, this thread is about whether workers should have the right to have secret ballots when choosing whether or not to unionize. I really cannot see why unions want to get rid of secret ballots. I think that how I vote, no matter what venue, should be private unless I choose to share that information. So why do the unions want to take that right away when it comes to choosing or not choosing to unionize?
Go back through this string, I have addressed this at length earlier.
Nobody put a gun to managements head and made them sign a contract. Nothing is free, those benefits are tax free pay for his work. The company would have paid it in salary had we wanted.
Who are YOU to say he was over paid. You do not know what he does, nor do YOU know how much he is paid, nor do you have any idea how difficult his skill is to master.
You sir appear to be a jealous union hater.
I agree and disagree about no one putting a gun to their head. If GM didn't agree then they were shut down while Ford took their market share. If Ford didn't agree GM would. The UAW got pretty smart and started to strike in smaller contributing factories that could shut down the whole industry. So yes, they didn't have to give in but if they didn't how long could they hold out? What you are saying they should have gone under long ago, maybe you’re right.
How much more simple can I make it. Market rate is what you are worth, you may not like it but that is a fact. Can you not agree with that? Therefore forcing an employer to compensate you more than market rate is paying you more than you are worth.
"jealous union hater"? Please stop with the hater BS. If people want to unionize fine, I have no problem with that. Just don't do it by intimidation and be prepared to accept the consequences that may come down the road as with the UAW. They got what they wanted all those years, now when the industry is collapsing under their weight they expect tax payers to bail them out and people like you say it's not their fault for giving them what they demanded. In other words they are not smart enough to know what's good for them, maybe you have a point there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
