Info on the Employee Free Choice Act

[Craig234]

I posted previously that I was unclear on why secret elections were not adequate, and allowing signature cards to form a union was justified.

Now, www.commondreams.org has posted an article answering my questions and making some very good points on the benefits of this legislation.

Those who simply oppose unions in a prejuciced manner won't care what the issues are, if it helps unions they're against it.

But people who are interested in the issues should read it.

It covers include how effectively employeers can use the anti-union industry to pressure workers, and other provisions of the bill.

Federal Law prohibits employers from firing employees for attempting to form a union.

But it happens frequently. Why? What are the penalties of breaking the law? None.

If the workers win the vote to form a union in the secret ballot, this legislation would allow an arbitrator to get involved if the setup negotiations break down.

What happens today? Half the time, the employers just stall because after a year, the vote expires. No penalty.

Link to article

 

[Zenmervolt]

From the article:

Moving cargo on the Oakland waterfront pays three times what stocking shelves does at Wal-Mart because longshore workers have had a union contract since 1934.

Or, you know, because stocking shelves at Wal-Mart is an indoor job in a climate-controlled environment that does not involve the same amounts of heavy lifting or risk of severe injury that are inherent in a longshoreman's job. Compare apples to apples. How do the wages of Wal-Mart shelf-stockers compare to the wages of UFCW-member shelf-stockers at other stores?

The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to repay three times the back pay of a worker fired for organizing a union, with $20,000 fines for willful or repeated violations. It is illegal to fire a worker for union activity, but pro-union workers were fired in 30 percent of union-representation elections in 2007, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. There are no fines or penalties on employers for this - just reinstatement and back pay, and employers even get to deduct the unemployment benefits of the fired worker.

Having to reinstate a disgruntled employee and pay for time not worked sure seems like a penalty to me. Though I would agree with adding fines and could be convinced that the additional payment to the wronged worker isn't a bad idea.

The proposed legislation would therefore bring back the process for forming unions used in the years after the labor act was first passed (and which is used today in Canada). Workers would be able to sign union cards, and employers would have to recognize their union if a majority signed. Today, employers demand secret-ballot elections, and then wage an anti-union campaign that peaks on election day. For instance, according to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, at Blue Diamond in Sacramento, the company told workers two days before the election that many might lose their jobs if the union won because growers wouldn't bring any more almonds to the plant.

Companies like Blue Diamond use outside union-busters, who have created a billion-dollar industry managing these anti-union campaigns. Campaign tactics include: In the weeks before these tainted elections, 51 percent of employers threaten to close if the union wins; and 91 percent force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with supervisors. This conduct is effectively unpunishable, making a mockery of free elections. Signing cards is a safer, calmer process that workers control themselves, and workers keep the option of using either the cards or the election - their choice, not their employer's.

OK, so employers wouldn't know that a card-check was going on? How would the card-check stop any of the campaigning by the company? I just don't see how a card-check will prevent any of the actions they cite as problematic.

Last, when workers form a union and a majority supports it, companies should negotiate a contract. That's what the law says. The reality? Even when workers win elections, companies don't negotiate in half the cases. After a year, they can legally walk away. When workers at the Rite-Aid warehouse in Lancaster (Los Angeles County) won an election, the most important agreement they could achieve after 18 bargaining sessions was the location of the union bulletin board.

With the Employee Free Choice Act, after 120 days of fruitless bargaining on a first-time contract, an arbitrator can resolve the issues still in dispute. Companies say they fear an outsider imposing unrealistic conditions. But with no mechanism to force agreement, companies know it's lots cheaper to wait out the year than to raise wages and provide better benefits.

I agree that companies should face some sort of fine/punishment for dragging their feet, and I like the arbitrator idea. My only question is who chooses the arbitrator and how is the arbitrator's neutrality ensured? Neither side should have unilateral ability to choose an arbitrator, though there need to be penalties for either side if they drag their feet in choosing the arbitrator.

Essentially, if they removed the card-check provision I would likely support the Act, but as it is I am not fond of any election that lacks the anonymity of a secret ballot polling.

ZV

 

[PokerGuy]

Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided. This legislation is a simple attempt at giving the unions more power, so no matter what the details and issues at stake, overall it's a terrible idea.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided. This legislation is a simple attempt at giving the unions more power, so no matter what the details and issues at stake, overall it's a terrible idea.

Yes, we should all bow to our corporate masters, they know what is best.

 

[winnar111]

Sign this card or I'll break your kneecaps.

Go ahead and do this, let's lose a million jobs a month!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We had a plant in St. Joseph, MO that recently closed. The 'corporate masters' told them that they couldn't afford to give them the raise and additional benefits they wanted and the union went on strike despite opposition from a very vocal minority (about 40% of the 100 or so workers). Now there are 100-some people out of work without any income, 40 of which were helpless victims of the collective bargaining process gone bad. Real jobs, real people, real families...all screwed. And the corporation is the 'bad guy' here? BTW, we're now in Chapter 11 and trying our best to save the company and the 20k or so jobs that go with it.

Unions can be, and often are, their own worst enemy.

Edit: typos

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided. This legislation is a simple attempt at giving the unions more power, so no matter what the details and issues at stake, overall it's a terrible idea.

Yes, we should all bow to our corporate masters, they know what is best.

You mean our new Saudi Kings?

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
We had a plant in St. Joseph, MO that recently closed. The 'corporate masters' told them that they couldn't afford to give them the raise and additional benefits they wanted and the union went on strike despite opposition from a very vocal minority (about 40% of the 100 or so workers). Now there are 100-some people out of work without any income, 40 of which were helpless victims of the collective bargaining process gone bad. Real jobs, real people, real families...all screwed. And the corporation is the 'bad guy' here? BTW, we're now in Chapter 11 and trying our best to save the company and the 20k or so jobs that go with it.

Unions can be, and often are, their own worst enemy.

Edit: typos

If you weren't actually an active participant in the negotiating process, ie- a member of the negotiating committie representing the rank and file, then there may be circumstances that you were not made aware of that led to your present circumstances.

It very well may be that Management wanted to enter into bankruptcy to bust the Union, or force the Union to strike to save a huge chunk of change on the wages and benefits they didn't have to pay during the strike, then use those savings to wait out the strikers and force concessions out of them that way.

It also very well may be that the Union was demanding that Management equally share in concessions needed to make the Company leaner and meaner and better able to compete in a recessive economy, and Management balked, preferring to have the rank and file make all those concessions needed to stay competitive, with Management having to keep all their wages, bonuses and other perks intact.

In an economic downturn, Management always has the upper hand in negotiating new contracts, whereby they can extract concessions they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and at the same time keep their pay and benefits at current levels or even provide themselves increases that were gleaned from the concessions negotiated from the rank and file.

The Unions know this, and stand fast to the idea that all must suffer equally or no deal, forcing Management into deciding wether to accept equal concessions or making an attempt to bust the Union by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing with a new work crew, or hiring former employees that are forced by economic circumstances at home to take pay and benefit cuts that they other wise would not accept, or a mix of both.

But let us squash the myth once and for all that the Unions are to blame every time negotiations break down and work stoppages occur. Management is at all times equally or more responsible for work stoppages in the majority of situations.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

Great post.

 

[cubby1223]

Just because big stinky evil mean-o corporations are not popular, does not mean unchecked unions are better.

That's why it needs to be discussed openly, instead of behind closed doors, and rammed through congress in an "OMG THERE'S NO TIME TO READ OR DEBATE THIS, IT MUST BE PASSED IMMEDIATELY OR THE APOCALYPSE WILL BE UPON US!!!!"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Just because big stinky evil mean-o corporations are not popular, does not mean unchecked unions are better.

That's why it needs to be discussed openly, instead of behind closed doors, and rammed through congress in an "OMG THERE'S NO TIME TO READ OR DEBATE THIS, IT MUST BE PASSED IMMEDIATELY OR THE APOCALYPSE WILL BE UPON US!!!!"

How are unions in any way, shape, or form 'unchecked'? Can you point to anyone that is advancing the notion of 'unchecked unions'? What would that even be? You're arguing against something that doesn't exist.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
We had a plant in St. Joseph, MO that recently closed. The 'corporate masters' told them that they couldn't afford to give them the raise and additional benefits they wanted and the union went on strike despite opposition from a very vocal minority (about 40% of the 100 or so workers). Now there are 100-some people out of work without any income, 40 of which were helpless victims of the collective bargaining process gone bad. Real jobs, real people, real families...all screwed. And the corporation is the 'bad guy' here? BTW, we're now in Chapter 11 and trying our best to save the company and the 20k or so jobs that go with it.

Unions can be, and often are, their own worst enemy.

Edit: typos

If you weren't actually an active participant in the negotiating process, ie- a member of the negotiating committie representing the rank and file, then there may be circumstances that you were not made aware of that led to your present circumstances.

It very well may be that Management wanted to enter into bankruptcy to bust the Union, or force the Union to strike to save a huge chunk of change on the wages and benefits they didn't have to pay during the strike, then use those savings to wait out the strikers and force concessions out of them that way.

It also very well may be that the Union was demanding that Management equally share in concessions needed to make the Company leaner and meaner and better able to compete in a recessive economy, and Management balked, preferring to have the rank and file make all those concessions needed to stay competitive, with Management having to keep all their wages, bonuses and other perks intact.

In an economic downturn, Management always has the upper hand in negotiating new contracts, whereby they can extract concessions they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and at the same time keep their pay and benefits at current levels or even provide themselves increases that were gleaned from the concessions negotiated from the rank and file.

The Unions know this, and stand fast to the idea that all must suffer equally or no deal, forcing Management into deciding wether to accept equal concessions or making an attempt to bust the Union by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing with a new work crew, or hiring former employees that are forced by economic circumstances at home to take pay and benefit cuts that they other wise would not accept, or a mix of both.

But let us squash the myth once and for all that the Unions are to blame every time negotiations break down and work stoppages occur. Management is at all times equally or more responsible for work stoppages in the majority of situations.

I think you missed my point (which btw is about the 40 victims here and how stupid Union leadership can be)...but I'll go down this road for a little while if you wish.

First of all, for whatever reason, it's clear by your comments and speculations that you have a strong Anti-Company bias. Our company has been actively closing plants for years to get the supply/demand curve in sync as a result of our industrial base moving offshore... which is further exacerbated by the recent economic downturn. Our principle unions know that we're struggling to survive and they look at what happened in St. Joseph and wonder WTF they were thinking. It was a local decision to strike.

Plain and simple...in this particular case...these 60 Union guys were morons. I NEVER said that "Unions are to blame every time negotiations break down and work stoppages occur"...but, in this particular case...they were the blame. You go on to state that "Management is at all times equally or more responsible for work stoppages in the majority of situations." Do you have facts to back up your claims? Or is this just a fabrication...the product of an active imagination steeped in personal bias?

When our company went into Chapter 11, we had to opportunity to break all our Union contracts and renegotiate. We chose not to do that. In contrast to what you may imagine...we're not asking "the rank and file make all those concessions needed to stay competitive, with Management having to keep all their wages, bonuses and other perks intact." Management gets no increases or bonuses. The corporate jet is now gone as well as the other "perks" that you may imagine.

You know...the world is not nearly as black and white as you may think....the shades of gray are infinite. Is our company perfect...no. But we're doing our damnest to save 20,000 jobs...most of which are union. So now that we've cleared that up...you now know where to stick your 'all companies are evil' bias...right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? A job is not a favor your employer is doing for you, it is a mutually beneficial contract. You don't need to feel ANY gratitude towards him whatsoever. The employer is completely taking advantage of circumstances to lower what he has to pay his employees, and yet you think that it's arrogant for employees to return the favor? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So concentration of capital used as a bargaining advantage is okay, but concentration of labor used as a bargaining advantage is arrogant and unappreciative. Complete and utter bullshit.

Lets turn it around: an employer needs employees to provide his business with the manpower and skills he requires in order to make money. They are the hand that feeds him, and so he should approach people he wants to work for him with an attitude of humility, and when they decide to work for him he should feel some semblance of gratitude.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? A job is not a favor your employer is doing for you, it is a mutually beneficial contract. You don't need to feel ANY gratitude towards him whatsoever. The employer is completely taking advantage of circumstances to lower what he has to pay his employees, and yet you think that it's arrogant for employees to return the favor? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So concentration of capital used as a bargaining advantage is okay, but concentration of labor used as a bargaining advantage is arrogant and unappreciative. Complete and utter bullshit.

Lets turn it around: an employer needs employees to provide his business with the manpower and skills he requires in order to make money. They are the hand that feeds him, and so he should approach people he wants to work for him with an attitude of humility, and when they decide to work for him he should feel some semblance of gratitude.

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

You said it's a mutually beneficial contract. I agree. That would imply that once one side believes it's no longer beneficial to them commensurate to their sacrifice, that they may withdraw from said contract. Yet unions seek to levy penalties against employers who do not meet their demands. That doesn't sound like a contract, much less a mutually-beneficial one.

 

[nixium]

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

That's ridiculous. Of course employers approach you. Have you heard of recruiting? Job fairs? Companies hire people away all the time. This is like saying a clothing shop has all the power because the clothing shop doesn't have to approach people, people approach the shop to buy stuff. A company has to advertise if it wants to attract the best talent there is. If you're really good at what you do, you might have multiple offers at the same time. Are you supposed to be "humble" to what everyone offers and accept any salary without bargaining?

You said it's a mutually beneficial contract. I agree. That would imply that once one side believes it's no longer beneficial to them commensurate to their sacrifice, that they may withdraw from said contract. Yet unions seek to levy penalties against employers who do not meet their demands. That doesn't sound like a contract, much less a mutually-beneficial one.

So concentration of capital used as a bargaining advantage is okay, but concentration of labor used as a bargaining advantage is arrogant and unappreciative. Complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: nixium

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

That's ridiculous. Of course employers approach you. Have you heard of recruiting? Job fairs? Companies hire people away all the time. This is like saying a clothing shop has all the power because the clothing shop doesn't have to approach people, people approach the shop to buy stuff. A company has to advertise if it wants to attract the best talent there is. If you're really good at what you do, you might have multiple offers at the same time. Are you supposed to be "humble" to what everyone offers and accept any salary without bargaining?

It's one thing to negotiate pay at the hiring table. It's quite another to negotiate it after being hired. That's where I object.

 

[TheoPetro]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? A job is not a favor your employer is doing for you, it is a mutually beneficial contract. You don't need to feel ANY gratitude towards him whatsoever. The employer is completely taking advantage of circumstances to lower what he has to pay his employees, and yet you think that it's arrogant for employees to return the favor? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. So concentration of capital used as a bargaining advantage is okay, but concentration of labor used as a bargaining advantage is arrogant and unappreciative. Complete and utter bullshit.

Lets turn it around: an employer needs employees to provide his business with the manpower and skills he requires in order to make money. They are the hand that feeds him, and so he should approach people he wants to work for him with an attitude of humility, and when they decide to work for him he should feel some semblance of gratitude.

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

You said it's a mutually beneficial contract. I agree. That would imply that once one side believes it's no longer beneficial to them commensurate to their sacrifice, that they may withdraw from said contract. Yet unions seek to levy penalties against employers who do not meet their demands. That doesn't sound like a contract, much less a mutually-beneficial one.

Agree 100%

Back to the EFCA. The reason so many people have such a problem with this thing is that it removes the secret ballot process and replaces it with an open one. In the same way you wouldnt want someone standing over you to watch who you vote for for president you wouldnt want someone doing that while you vote whether or not to join a union. I am against unions in general because to me they create a toxic environment to work in. Its not a "team" environment like it should be (I know how corney that sounds but its true). A corporation should treat its employees with respect and they should return that respect in kind. There is NO need for a union to be involved in a company operating in this way but the unions have an incentive to sign as many people up and to unionize as many companies as possible regardless of the employee's wants. Union leaders get richer by having more members paying dues which is why unions are so involved in politics and legal affairs. They know that many company's employees would be fine without them so they salt the company and file an unfair labor practice complaint and sue the company. The company either goes broke fighting these frivolous claims or they finally go "fine, fuck it, we cant run the business like this so lets just give in." It has nothing to do with employees thinking "hey were not being treated right, lets form a union." It is 100% an outside union soliciting new members so the fat cats that run them can pocket more $. Unions are as bad and corrupt (even more so in many cases) than the asshole companies that caused their formation in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

You said it's a mutually beneficial contract. I agree. That would imply that once one side believes it's no longer beneficial to them commensurate to their sacrifice, that they may withdraw from said contract. Yet unions seek to levy penalties against employers who do not meet their demands. That doesn't sound like a contract, much less a mutually-beneficial one.

Uhmmmm, yes they do come looking for you. And yes, employers often compete for the same employees. You've gotten more than one job offer at the same time in your life haven't you? No humility whatsoever should be expected of the employee, mutual respect should be expected. I would never think to offer any gratitude whatsoever to an employer, because he's not doing me a favor. He's paying me the least possible money he thinks he can get away with while still attracting the people he needs.

As nixium already beat me to, you're once again supporting the bargaining power of the concentration of capital and then complaining about the bargaining power of the concentration of labor. I'm not sure why you can't see the hypocrisy in your stance on this issue, but your idea of employment seems badly skewed.

Furthermore, companies frequently use their power to renegotiate contracts after people have been hired. If one side does it, why can't the other side? The answer is that they can, and they do. The way it should be.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Anything that in any way increases union membership is a bad thing for the country and should be avoided.

Oh come on. People say things like this and still manage to wonder why conservatives don't get taken seriously?

Not all unions are bad. Some are, some aren't. The concept behind unions (collective bargaining) is valid. There are indeed many instances of unions demonstrating corruption, but that's not a legitimate reason to vilify the concept of collective bargaining. Now, when you start getting into the idea of "closed shops" (mandatory union membership in order to hold the job), then I agree that this is a bad thing, but again this is not an inherent part of unions.

ZV

I have a very basic philosophy on this, socially.

I think collective bargaining is arrogant. You apply to work for this employer, which is a transaction: Your work and time for his or her money. In my opinion, he or she is buying something from you. To then collectivize and attempt to leverage more pay, which is of course at the employer's expense, is in effect forcing (or at least attempting to force) the employer to buy at a higher price, with penalties if the employer does not.

In a social sense, to me that's biting the hand that feeds. In my opinion, when you are unemployed, you approach an empoyer from an attitude of humility. He doesn't have to hire you, and if he does, you should feel some semblance of gratitude. To try and take advantage of circumstances to force higher benefits is, to me, a slap in the face to one who is already providing your livelyhood.

I disagree with unions in principle. I disagree with the premise that there is some "right to work." It strikes me as arrogant, and unappreciative. If you don't like your job, find another job that suits you. That's capitalism. Labor is a product that you sell. If you want a higher price, either improve yourself, or sell it elsewhere. Don't try and strong arm your client.

Corporations are a form of collective bargaining. Investors/entrepeneurs who would not have the financial wherewithal to start a business on their own form a corporation, thereby creating a legal entity which while it acts as a single entity it is really just a representative of many individuals. Publicly held corporations are owned by millions of people, and therefore the corporation itself is engaging in collective bargaining every day.

Unions are the labor version of corporations, and there is nothing wrong with unions. What is wrong is removing the secret ballot. It paves the way for intimidation both from the employer and the union and is a step backward for employees despite what the unions claim.

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: nixium

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

That's ridiculous. Of course employers approach you. Have you heard of recruiting? Job fairs? Companies hire people away all the time. This is like saying a clothing shop has all the power because the clothing shop doesn't have to approach people, people approach the shop to buy stuff. A company has to advertise if it wants to attract the best talent there is. If you're really good at what you do, you might have multiple offers at the same time. Are you supposed to be "humble" to what everyone offers and accept any salary without bargaining?

It's one thing to negotiate pay at the hiring table. It's quite another to negotiate it after being hired. That's where I object.

Let's put it this way - you're OK if my employer cuts my salary for whatever reason, because I'm supposed to be "humble" and be glad I have a job. However, suppose I perform really well, I'm not allowed to ask for extra money because I'm supposed to "humble" and be glad I've a job. What sense does this make?

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
We had a plant in St. Joseph, MO that recently closed. The 'corporate masters' told them that they couldn't afford to give them the raise and additional benefits they wanted and the union went on strike despite opposition from a very vocal minority (about 40% of the 100 or so workers). Now there are 100-some people out of work without any income, 40 of which were helpless victims of the collective bargaining process gone bad. Real jobs, real people, real families...all screwed. And the corporation is the 'bad guy' here? BTW, we're now in Chapter 11 and trying our best to save the company and the 20k or so jobs that go with it.

Unions can be, and often are, their own worst enemy.

Edit: typos

If you weren't actually an active participant in the negotiating process, ie- a member of the negotiating committie representing the rank and file, then there may be circumstances that you were not made aware of that led to your present circumstances.

It very well may be that Management wanted to enter into bankruptcy to bust the Union, or force the Union to strike to save a huge chunk of change on the wages and benefits they didn't have to pay during the strike, then use those savings to wait out the strikers and force concessions out of them that way.

It also very well may be that the Union was demanding that Management equally share in concessions needed to make the Company leaner and meaner and better able to compete in a recessive economy, and Management balked, preferring to have the rank and file make all those concessions needed to stay competitive, with Management having to keep all their wages, bonuses and other perks intact.

In an economic downturn, Management always has the upper hand in negotiating new contracts, whereby they can extract concessions they otherwise wouldn't be able to, and at the same time keep their pay and benefits at current levels or even provide themselves increases that were gleaned from the concessions negotiated from the rank and file.

The Unions know this, and stand fast to the idea that all must suffer equally or no deal, forcing Management into deciding wether to accept equal concessions or making an attempt to bust the Union by declaring bankruptcy and reorganizing with a new work crew, or hiring former employees that are forced by economic circumstances at home to take pay and benefit cuts that they other wise would not accept, or a mix of both.

But let us squash the myth once and for all that the Unions are to blame every time negotiations break down and work stoppages occur. Management is at all times equally or more responsible for work stoppages in the majority of situations.

I think you missed my point (which btw is about the 40 victims here and how stupid Union leadership can be)...but I'll go down this road for a little while if you wish.

First of all, for whatever reason, it's clear by your comments and speculations that you have a strong Anti-Company bias. Our company has been actively closing plants for years to get the supply/demand curve in sync as a result of our industrial base moving offshore... which is further exacerbated by the recent economic downturn. Our principle unions know that we're struggling to survive and they look at what happened in St. Joseph and wonder WTF they were thinking. It was a local decision to strike.

Plain and simple...in this particular case...these 60 Union guys were morons. I NEVER said that "Unions are to blame every time negotiations break down and work stoppages occur"...but, in this particular case...they were the blame. You go on to state that "Management is at all times equally or more responsible for work stoppages in the majority of situations." Do you have facts to back up your claims? Or is this just a fabrication...the product of an active imagination steeped in personal bias?

When our company went into Chapter 11, we had to opportunity to break all our Union contracts and renegotiate. We chose not to do that. In contrast to what you may imagine...we're not asking "the rank and file make all those concessions needed to stay competitive, with Management having to keep all their wages, bonuses and other perks intact." Management gets no increases or bonuses. The corporate jet is now gone as well as the other "perks" that you may imagine.

You know...the world is not nearly as black and white as you may think....the shades of gray are infinite. Is our company perfect...no. But we're doing our damnest to save 20,000 jobs...most of which are union. So now that we've cleared that up...you now know where to stick your 'all companies are evil' bias...right?

Thanks for clarifying and expounding your position and the circumstances that affected your Company. I now have a better undertanding of your position and predicament:thumbsup:

Now let me clarify mine in light of the added input on your part.

I am "blessed" with the knowledge of having been able to sit on both sides of the bargaining table as I was a Production Manager for a Company that got moved lock stock and barrel to Tennessee for more favorable tax subsidies, and later as a negotiator for the Union that I am now a member of.

It's from this perspective that I comment on. I DO have over 25 years of actual experience to base my comments on.

As a Production Manager I was personally invloved with twice turning away attempts by Unions to organize at our manufacturing plant. I had my car vandalized, I had to endure threatening phone calls at 2 AM in the morning, etc....you know, all the usual strong arm tactics. What got us through these attempts was the fact that we took good care of our employees and treated them fairly and with the respect they were due. Our philosophy was that since our biggest expense was also our biggest asset, that we should treat our biggest asset as such, and value them accordingly.

After that, I got hired at the Company where I later chose to become a Union Rep. The reason? I soon realized that the philosophy that I got imbued with at the plant where I was a Production Manager was not being practiced at the plant where I got hired as a working team leader. The Management team did not care for and was belligerent toward their employees. Some of their Middle Management personnel were off on power trips creating little autocracies for themselves with the blessing of upper Management.

The Bargaining Agreement that Management agreed to was being abused and scoffed at by Management at all levels.

In short, there was a need for Union representation at that Plant as well as others that were being oppressive and opprtunistic toward their employees.

As our Union also represented many other companies, I got to negotiate on their behalf also and saw first hand how abusive Management teams could be, and equally so, how unreasonable employees can be in their demands.

Ergo, my statement that Management is at all times equally or....

You are in error about me having an Anti-Company bias, and it's understandable for you to assume that. What you considered to be strong Anti-Company bias on my part was just me flipping over the other side of the coin.

Nor did I point a finger directly at you and claim that you said Unions were to blame, and I'm sorry if I somehow led you to get that impression. The only reference that I made about you personally was that you may have not known all the factors invloved in whatever negotiations you may not have been privy to, and I went on to expand in that area.

"All your companies are evil bias?" I hope you know now that that's just not the case.

K?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nixium

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: nixium

When you're unemployed, you go looking for employers, and others compete for the position to which you apply. Employers don't come to you. The employer, being the one who offers employment, is in the driver's seat. They could hire anyone. This puts you at a disadvantage. Yes, it's a relationship, but not an equal one. For this reason, you should approach the situation with humility.

That's ridiculous. Of course employers approach you. Have you heard of recruiting? Job fairs? Companies hire people away all the time. This is like saying a clothing shop has all the power because the clothing shop doesn't have to approach people, people approach the shop to buy stuff. A company has to advertise if it wants to attract the best talent there is. If you're really good at what you do, you might have multiple offers at the same time. Are you supposed to be "humble" to what everyone offers and accept any salary without bargaining?

It's one thing to negotiate pay at the hiring table. It's quite another to negotiate it after being hired. That's where I object.

Let's put it this way - you're OK if my employer cuts my salary for whatever reason, because I'm supposed to be "humble" and be glad I have a job. However, suppose I perform really well, I'm not allowed to ask for extra money because I'm supposed to "humble" and be glad I've a job. What sense does this make?

What you've described is merit based pay. Unions don't use that idea as a starting point(although some of the good unions allow for those who want to excel and work hard -make more)

As to this whole card check thing - it's the some of the worst legislation I've seen come from the Unions in quite some time. I'm amazed it has as much support as it does(although likely from the ignorant who just read the "name" of the bill). There is nothing more "FAIR" than having a secret ballot where NO ONE stands over your shoulder seeing how you "vote".

 

[Fern]

Do workers need protection from employers? Do they need protection from unions? I believe the answer is 'yes' to both. Too many stories about union corruption and involvement of organized crime. Too many stories of union employees who do NOT feel they get a benefit from the union dues but are nontheless forced to pay them. And we do have instances of workers being the pawns in battles between employers and unions, with the employees being the ones who suffer - neither side is looking out for them. I fear in this day-and-age unions mostly promote themselves (not employees) and are far too involved in politics. I understand lobbying for safe workplaces and other issues directly related to the employees' well being, but I think much of that has been addressed (e.g., OSHA) and to much of their political activism is for unions themselves and not emplyees. The emplyees have become merely their 'ammo' in the political fight and are no longer the benefit of their political efforts.

I believe the author is biased towards unions, several things he said seem very pro-union. Here is a sample:

Unions are good for workers...

The preamble (of the 1936 National Labor Relations Act) declares the law's purpose: "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and ... protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing."

Many employers simply do not accept the law's intention - encouraging workers to organize

In short, the author believes the purpose of the law is to encourage unions, so he wants it strengthened to help form more unions; unions are good thing.

I do not feel that way, my position is that if workers want to unionize it should be a fair process. Not a process that favors unionization, but a process that is fair for the employees. I do not want it to encourage, or discourage unions but be neutral.

So, I cannot agree with anyone who wants the law to favor unions, nor can I gree with those who want it to discourage unions.

Reading through the complaints he raises I see two seprate issues: (1) The process whereby workers indicate whether or not they want a union (the vote), and (2) what happens after they vote to form a union (somehow there are no problems if they vote 'no'?).

The problems under #1 above, and #2, are two different problems and should be handled differently. For some reason the author is trying to claim that fixing #1 by getting rid of a secret ballot in the vote will autmatically fix the problems he lists under #2; yet he offers no explanation how.

The problems he lists:

1. Firing workers who try to organize unions, there is no fine for the employer breaking this rule. (But isn't there a trebling of wages as damages in civil court? If so, that means the unfairly fired employee gets a benefit. Imposing fines does nothing for the employee, only raises revenue for the governemnt.)

If there is no trebling of wages for a worker unfairly fired that should be changed. That is the proper solution, a non-secret balot does nothing to solve this alleged problem.

2. Employers threaten to close the workplace if a union is formed. I don't see how this is much different than workers threatening to close down a business by striking?

Well, you can't make an employer remain open. When a union comes in the labor costs, among others, will rise. Some employers will have to close. What are we gonna do, bail themout? In any case, cards will not resolve this. Cards affect only the vote, not what the employer may do after a unionization is approved.

3. Employers dragging their feet - that seems a valid problem. Again, this foot-draging only occurs after the vote; I do not see how cards resolves it. Other solutions are needed because 'cards' can't affect this.

4. Employers campaigning against unionization - what is wrong with that? The unions campaign for unionization, why shouldn't the employer be able to also campaign? This strikes me as some weird thinking on the author's behalf and indicates some real pro-union bias. But again, how will cards do anything here? It won't

The author is confusing the 'card system' with problems it cannot affect and prescribing it a cure when it won't be.

But again, IMO, the author doesn't want a neutral system that favors the employees' choice ovr employers or unions, he wants a law that favors unionization.

Nothing wrong with the current secret ballot, just fix the other unrelated problems.

Fern