Union Truths

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090504/NEWS/905045001?Title=Union-Truths

Published: Monday, May 4, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, May 2, 2009 at 4:22 a.m.

Dr. Owen Sear's April 14 letter <"Don't Disguise Effort to Remove Secret Ballot for Union Affiliation"> promotes the idea that secret ballot voting for a union will be eliminated by the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

If Dr. Sear would have "researched" this legislation, he would indeed learn that employees will still have the option of a secret ballot election. One of the things promoted by this legislation is that it would give employees the option of also voting by a majority sign-up. The "intimidation" that would be eliminated is the employer's intimidation of "threatening" to fire the employee or closing down the facility.

The Employee Free Choice Act further guarantees that companies cannot just "drag" their feet after an election. It would provide for mediation and/or binding arbitration to establish the union. It will also level the playing field by putting real penalties on companies that violate the law during organizing and contract campaigns.

In reality, the Employee Free Choice Act will establish an easier system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts.

Once again a Republican propaganda machine is at work to promote the demise of this much needed legislation. Labor unions have been the Republicans' Number One enemy. If Dr. Sear would look back on union history he would learn that unions have been and will continue to be employees' No. 1 ally. Without unions employees would have no recourse when it comes to an employer's intimidations. With unions employees' rights are preserved.

I therefore urge everyone who wishes to preserve employee rights to contact their congressmen to vote for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Without union representation this country is headed for a two class system: rich and poor.

LINDA LINDERMAN

[pleah]

1. K&R

[justanaverageguy]

2. Let's at least be honest with each other

While this bill does still allow for a secret ballot election, the chances of it actually being used is so slight that it does effectively eliminate it, and that's ok. That is why this bill is so strongly supported by the unions. Given the choice the union organizers would much rather be able to talk to you face to face about unionizing and getting you to commit by simply signing a card rather than leaving it up to a secret ballot. It's much more difficult, even in with no intimidation or coercion, to say no to someone face to face. It makes getting the required majority much easier for union organizers, and that's a good thing. So let's be honest, when opposition to this bill speaks of it eliminating the secret ballot it is not completely without merit.

[Omaha Steve]

3. Welcome to the Labor Forum

I got fired for organizing in 1980. Once I had more than enough cards signed to win an election, it took the company 2 days fire me. I did get all the cards signed in person INSIDE the plant on breaks or lunch.

A face to face yes or no isn't required. There is I'll leave it up to you. You can mail it to the NLRB and choose election OR card check yourself. With the other provisions of the Act also becoming law, without the old intimidation, what do you think most workers will want to do?

Edit for sp.

[justanaverageguy]

4. most workers will absolutely want to unionize.

There is no doubt about that. Sucks you got fired by the way.

You mentioned the other provision becoming law. I'm not sure that the mandatory arbitration is a great idea either. Don't get me wrong however, something has to be done to prevent companies from stretching out the negotiations forever, I'm not sure that this is the way to do it. I think that the employees should have a final up or down vote on the agreement before they are forced to live by it. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that if the agreement is set by an arbitrator the employees are denied the right of refusal. I can certainly envision a government appointed arbitrator who likely has never actually worked in the given industry setting into place a contract that is not very good for the workers. Maybe he was biased toward the employer. In the discussions that I have read regarding this, it seems to always be presumed that the arbitrator will be fair and unbiased. What if Mitt Romney wins the next election, do you really think that his administration would appoint fair arbitrators? I don't think so. Furthermore, what if we the workers who have decided to unionize are willing to wait longer than 120 days to get a good agreement done? Doesn't that now take out of our hands such tools as striking to apply pressure to the employer to agree to our terms? what good is a strike on day 99 if the employer knows that it will be over in 20 days anyway and an arbitrator appointed by his buddies in the government are going to arbitrate an agreement that is great for him but not so great for the workers?

[Omaha Steve]

5. Currently when arbitration is used....

The employer and the union each get list with five Federal arbitrators. They can review each decision the individuals have written. They each can exclude two they don't want. That means at least one name is on each list. Arbitrators can make mistakes too. My thought is that with arbitration staring at the employer, they will offer a fair contract compared to other union shops from fear of having it stuff to them if they don't.

EFCA also has penalties for companies that violate NLRB law. When I was fired there was no penalty other than back pay. With EFCA it is double back pay and fines.