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.
I'm all for Employee Free Choice Act since I don't feel hatred against unions. Speaking of labor union corruption it, no doubt, dwarfs what has been going on at the corporate level.
This looks important - the entire "'STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT" section.
Whenever it is charged--
`(A) that any employer--
`(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;
`(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of section 8; or
`(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or
`(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);
the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.'.
and the Remedies for Violations, I dont know if they're more strict than they used to be, but they sound like good protection.
This looks important - the entire "'STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT" section.
Whenever it is charged--
`(A) that any employer--
`(i) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of section 8;
`(ii) threatened to discharge or to otherwise discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(1) of section 8; or
`(iii) engaged in any other unfair labor practice within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) that significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7;
while employees of that employer were seeking representation by a labor organization or during the period after a labor organization was recognized as a representative defined in section 9(a) until the first collective bargaining contract is entered into between the employer and the representative; or
`(B) that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of subparagraph (A), (B) or (C) of section 8(b)(4), section 8(e), or section 8(b)(7);
the preliminary investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to which it is referred.'.
and the Remedies for Violations, I dont know if they're more strict than they used to be, but they sound like good protection.
protection of what?
at the point where the worker loses the right to a private vote, nothing else really matters does it?
Right now a group that wants to unionize has to get a petition that has a certain % of the workforce. once that number has been reached, the National Labor Board (I think) sets up an election where each worker gets to cast a vote for or against by secret ballot.
if that process is done away with. Unions can go into any business, bully the workers and get a petition signed by intemidation.
there is no recourse for the workers to have their say privately like you and I have on election day.
Thank you Ferd - I dont see how unions can get a petition signed by intimidation as a result, though - ?
Thank you Ferd - I dont see how unions can get a petition signed by intimidation as a result, though - ?
What do you think the intent of the bill is?
I'll keep reading -
The intent of the bill is to strengthen unions. Union membership has been declining, the union lobbyists have been exerting pressure on legislators to get this bill passed to make the process of unionizing workplaces easier.
The intimidation comes from the absence of a secret ballot. When unions thought they had enough members in the past, they would ask for an election. If the majority of workers voted for it, the union would be organized, if the majority of workers voted it down, the union was free to continue to try to persuade workers. The thing was, since it was a secret ballot, the union didn't always know which workers they needed to persuade. Remove the secret ballot, and the union can identify the hold-outs, and focus their efforts on them. The holdouts will also be known to their fellow workers, and it can lead to a working atmosphere that could easily become hostile.
I support Obama, but I do not support this piece of legislation. I only hope that the problems inherent in the legislation will become clearer to legislators and that those problems will be addressed. Workers should be able to maintain their privacy on this issue in the same way that voters do on political issues when they vote.
The intent of the bill is to strengthen unions. Union membership has been declining, the union lobbyists have been exerting pressure on legislators to get this bill passed to make the process of unionizing workplaces easier.
The intimidation comes from the absence of a secret ballot. When unions thought they had enough members in the past, they would ask for an election. If the majority of workers voted for it, the union would be organized, if the majority of workers voted it down, the union was free to continue to try to persuade workers. The thing was, since it was a secret ballot, the union didn't always know which workers they needed to persuade. Remove the secret ballot, and the union can identify the hold-outs, and focus their efforts on them. The holdouts will also be known to their fellow workers, and it can lead to a working atmosphere that could easily become hostile.
I support Obama, but I do not support this piece of legislation. I only hope that the problems inherent in the legislation will become clearer to legislators and that those problems will be addressed. Workers should be able to maintain their privacy on this issue in the same way that voters do on political issues when they vote.
Thank you, DC at the Ridge. Well - that sounds wrong! Could all those sponsors possibly have had this in mind - strengthening unions' opportunity to coerce? How could they not see this, unless they were seeing it perfectly well?
I deleted my earlier post as it was really just taking up space, but a question from there - How does a union generally "provide the opportunity" to sign cards? And - doesnt a union collect dues from all employees in a majority-union company? (This could be an old wives tale)
Wikipedia says this, about the current method and EFCA method:
The methods to recognize a union in the United States both begin with an employee petition for representation by a union. If more than 30% of employees, but less than a clear majority, sign petition cards requesting representation the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board, known as the NLRB, to hold a secret ballot election. If more than 50% of employees certify their desire for representation, an union can choose to form using card check procedures. Under current U.S. law, the employer need not recognize the card check petition and can require a secret-ballot vote overseen by the NLRB. Under the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, an employer could only challenge a card check petition if fraud or illegal coercion was alleged.
Is this correct?
Isnt it arranged like an election or a debate, where the premise (petition) is presented and both sides have a period of time in which to present their cases (and rebut each other's cases?) - and both sides are constrained from attempts at coercion?
Last edited by delusianne; 10-13-2008 at 02:09 PM..
In most areas this passing would only put an end to unions because of the privacy issue. It's a stupid idea but not a deal breaker for most people. I think it's better to keep it secret ballot, but I honestly don't see where unions would benefit from it at all. I'm a woman of very small stature and if someone tried to pressure me to join a union I would rip the card up in their face and tell them to blow it out their hoo hah.
The intent of the bill is to strengthen unions. Union membership has been declining, the union lobbyists have been exerting pressure on legislators to get this bill passed to make the process of unionizing workplaces easier.
The intimidation comes from the absence of a secret ballot. When unions thought they had enough members in the past, they would ask for an election. If the majority of workers voted for it, the union would be organized, if the majority of workers voted it down, the union was free to continue to try to persuade workers. The thing was, since it was a secret ballot, the union didn't always know which workers they needed to persuade. Remove the secret ballot, and the union can identify the hold-outs, and focus their efforts on them. The holdouts will also be known to their fellow workers, and it can lead to a working atmosphere that could easily become hostile.
I support Obama, but I do not support this piece of legislation. I only hope that the problems inherent in the legislation will become clearer to legislators and that those problems will be addressed. Workers should be able to maintain their privacy on this issue in the same way that voters do on political issues when they vote.
very articulate. But I have to say this with all due respect.
This bill will be signed by a president Barak Obama. He is a co-sponsor in the Senate. There is no question that this will pass a democrat controlled congress and no question that it will become the law with an Obama presidency.
Thank you, DC at the Ridge. Well - that sounds wrong! Could all those sponsors possibly have had this in mind - strengthening unions' opportunity to coerce? How could they not see this, unless they were seeing it perfectly well?
The secret ballot change was just part of this legislation. As someone else pointed out earlier, the concerns over companies' pressuring their employees was another issue that legislators were concerned with. The legislation seeks to address multiple issues, and was largely influenced by pro-union lobbyists. The people we elect to office may or may not be attorneys, but their jobs involve so many things besides writing legislation, they often depend on the constituents they represent, constituent organizations, or even lobby groups to write legislative drafts which are actually incorporated into legislation. So when we, as voters, hear about potentially problematic legislation, it's up to us to notify our representatives and get them to review that legislation.
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.
Thanks very much for the help 
