Info on the Employee Free Choice Act

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

Of course the union organizers can already form a union, today, without the secret ballot and without this legislation being passed. The only difference between what exists now, and what would exist with this law being passed is that under the current law the EMPLOYER gets to decide if the ballot is secret or not, and in this case the EMPLOYEES (you know, the people who are actually unionizing) get to decide if there is a secret ballot or not.

People are not fighting against this to protect poor joe union member, they are fighting against this because it removes a block to unionization that employers could use.

Exactly - it's the way it SHOULD be. The EMPLOYER is the one with the checkbook(payroll) and thus should expect a FAIR and SECRET ballot before being forced to deal with someone other than the employees directly. Also it's best for every employee(except the union fluffers who may not win in a secret ballot) for there to be a SECRET ballot so there is no direct pressure on their individual job/family.
To give some moron who needs a union the decision, takes it away from the stake holders - you know - the people with a vested interest in the company.
There is no need to block the absolutely fair idea that there should be a FAIR and SECRET ballot if the company does not want there to be a union. If people who are employed by the company really want a union - a SECRET ballot shouldn't stop a union from being formed - hell, it's secret - no one is going to know how you vote - how much more FAIR can you get than that?
These union thugs and fluffers don't want something that is actually FAIR and where the actual people get to vote -they just want to be able to force their will without a vote.

Wait, what? You think the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!? Are you insane? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. In what world do you give the opposing side in a negotiation control over how you negotiate? You, like Atreus21, seem to think that the employers are doing the employees a favor by employing them. They aren't.

Oh and to Triumph, while I would agree that a public ballot would make intimidation by either side easier, there have been 42 cases of union intimidation of workers reported in the last SIXTY years. The number of cases of EMPLOYER intimidation of people attempting to unionize are so vast and so wide reaching that it is literally many orders of magnitude larger. So no, you are far far far more likely to be intimidated by your employer than your fellow employees.

LOL, you are so full of sh!t. Just because the union fluffers whine about "intimidation" from the employer doesn't mean it actually happened - nor does it mean the union fluffer themselves didn't participate in any intimidation themselves. For you or anyone to claim that the employer intimidates more, shows just how much union koolaid you've drank.


Now as to your asinine strawman BS - Nowhere did I say anything close to "the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!" So yes, it is the stupidest things I've ever heard too - but they are YOUR words, not mine.
Why can't you union apologists actually read and be rational? Oh wait... who am I kidding... union apologists rational? buahahaha...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I'm having trouble understanding how voting in secret, allows the company to intimidate you? And how would voting publicly change this? Seems to me that making your vote public would make it easier to be intimidated by EITHER side (more likely by the union bosses, IMO).

Yep - that's why they are pushing so hard for this. All they have to do is come to your house, meet you during/after work to stick the card in your face until you sign. But really, that wouldn't happen would it? Surely a union organizer is going walk away instantly if a person says no...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Of course the union organizers can already form a union, today, without the secret ballot and without this legislation being passed. The only difference between what exists now, and what would exist with this law being passed is that under the current law the EMPLOYER gets to decide if the ballot is secret or not, and in this case the EMPLOYEES (you know, the people who are actually unionizing) get to decide if there is a secret ballot or not.

People are not fighting against this to protect poor joe union member, they are fighting against this because it removes a block to unionization that employers could use.

Exactly - it's the way it SHOULD be. The EMPLOYER is the one with the checkbook(payroll) and thus should expect a FAIR and SECRET ballot before being forced to deal with someone other than the employees directly. Also it's best for every employee(except the union fluffers who may not win in a secret ballot) for there to be a SECRET ballot so there is no direct pressure on their individual job/family.
To give some moron who needs a union the decision, takes it away from the stake holders - you know - the people with a vested interest in the company.
There is no need to block the absolutely fair idea that there should be a FAIR and SECRET ballot if the company does not want there to be a union. If people who are employed by the company really want a union - a SECRET ballot shouldn't stop a union from being formed - hell, it's secret - no one is going to know how you vote - how much more FAIR can you get than that?
These union thugs and fluffers don't want something that is actually FAIR and where the actual people get to vote -they just want to be able to force their will without a vote.

Wait, what? You think the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!? Are you insane? That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. In what world do you give the opposing side in a negotiation control over how you negotiate? You, like Atreus21, seem to think that the employers are doing the employees a favor by employing them. They aren't.

Oh and to Triumph, while I would agree that a public ballot would make intimidation by either side easier, there have been 42 cases of union intimidation of workers reported in the last SIXTY years. The number of cases of EMPLOYER intimidation of people attempting to unionize are so vast and so wide reaching that it is literally many orders of magnitude larger. So no, you are far far far more likely to be intimidated by your employer than your fellow employees.

LOL, you are so full of sh!t. Just because the union fluffers whine about "intimidation" from the employer doesn't mean it actually happened - nor does it mean the union fluffer themselves didn't participate in any intimidation themselves. For you or anyone to claim that the employer intimidates more, shows just how much union koolaid you've drank.


Now as to your asinine strawman BS - Nowhere did I say anything close to "the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!" So yes, it is the stupidest things I've ever heard too - but they are YOUR words, not mine.
Why can't you union apologists actually read and be rational? Oh wait... who am I kidding... union apologists rational? buahahaha...

Hahaha, you're just too stupid to realize what you wrote. In the current situation today, the choice for whether or not those trying to organize a union can use an open ballot or not rests with the employer. You specifically stated that 'it's the way it should be'. The post you replied to only mentioned the differences between current and future law, so that statement must be read by any rational person as an endorsement of current law. IE: the law where the employer gets to decide if the unions organize by secret ballot or open one.

As for your ideas about what constitutes 'whining about intimidation', I guess you should talk to the NLRB about that. A rough estimate shows more than 1,000 workers who were fired in 2005 for organizing efforts, and those are only the ones that were so egregious that they made it all the way to the NLRB.

But wait, you're CAD. Cue the eye rolls and pathetic excuses! I'm sure your keyboard autocorrected your post to 'stupid', right?

 

[Ferocious]

LOL, what utter ignorance.

I actually went through this whole process when I was younger. Zero intimidation involved. Organizers weren't allowed on company property until election day itself. Actually when 80% of the workers voted for union representation by signing cards and sending them to an organizer, the organizer showed up a week or two later to a meeting for all of us and it was up to us to convince him we were dead serious about moving forward as the company had requested a secret ballot election.

During the next two months after much "consultation" between consulants hired by the company and small groupls of employees...the election was finally held...the workers voted against representation with 52% no.

Whether or not the company keeps the right to demand a secret ballot election......the election needs to be held in a timely manner. I believe in Canada, elections must be held within 7 days once employees sign up for a union. I think 10-14 days is reasonable too.

This legislation will NOT pass. But hopefully it will result in fixing the problem of not having elections held in a timely fashion and also making sure companies who violate and abuse labor laws are actually held accountable.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hahaha, you're just too stupid to realize what you wrote. In the current situation today, the choice for whether or not those trying to organize a union can use an open ballot or not rests with the employer. You specifically stated that 'it's the way it should be'. The post you replied to only mentioned the differences between current and future law, so that statement must be read by any rational person as an endorsement of current law. IE: the law where the employer gets to decide if the unions organize by secret ballot or open one.

As for your ideas about what constitutes 'whining about intimidation', I guess you should talk to the NLRB about that. A rough estimate shows more than 1,000 workers who were fired in 2005 for organizing efforts, and those are only the ones that were so egregious that they made it all the way to the NLRB.

Yes, that's what my statement meant. It did not mean ""the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!"
The employer doesn't currently have the say as to IF and WHEN - the employees do. The employer has to option to demand there be a secret ballot. There is nothing wrong with that since the employer is the one who runs the business. If the employees want to form a union - having a SECRET BALLOT shouldn't stop them at all. It's clearly the most "fair" course for all involved, atleast to any RATIONAL person. So again, you went off on a rant that built up some strawman BS that I just didn't say. Next time you should watch what you post so you don't continue to look like a moron.

Yes, people filed with the board - so? That doesn't mean it actually happened. Nor does it mean there also wasn't intimidation the other way. Do you really think all the supposed "intimidation" gets reported? Hell no. So again for you or anyone to claim employers "intimidate" more has no rational basis in fact as real numbers just don't exist on this issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
LOL, what utter ignorance.

I actually went through this whole process when I was younger. Zero intimidation involved. Organizers weren't allowed on company property until election day itself. Actually when 80% of the workers voted for union representation by signing cards and sending them to an organizer, the organizer showed up a week or two later to a meeting for all of us and it was up to us to convince him we were dead serious about moving forward as the company had requested a secret ballot election.

During the next two months after much "consultation" between consulants hired by the company and small groupls of employees...the election was finally held...the workers voted against representation with 52% no.

Whether or not the company keeps the right to demand a secret ballot election......the election needs to be held in a timely manner. I believe in Canada, elections must be held within 7 days once employees sign up for a union. I think 10-14 days is reasonable too.

This legislation will NOT pass. But hopefully it will result in fixing the problem of not having elections held in a timely fashion and also making sure companies who violate and abuse labor laws are actually held accountable.

I could agree with that change - IF it really is a problem as you suggest. A SECRET VOTE should be held as soon as possible after the paperwork and such gets filed and moved through the process.

:beer: for a rational argument from a known union "fluffer"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hahaha, you're just too stupid to realize what you wrote. In the current situation today, the choice for whether or not those trying to organize a union can use an open ballot or not rests with the employer. You specifically stated that 'it's the way it should be'. The post you replied to only mentioned the differences between current and future law, so that statement must be read by any rational person as an endorsement of current law. IE: the law where the employer gets to decide if the unions organize by secret ballot or open one.

As for your ideas about what constitutes 'whining about intimidation', I guess you should talk to the NLRB about that. A rough estimate shows more than 1,000 workers who were fired in 2005 for organizing efforts, and those are only the ones that were so egregious that they made it all the way to the NLRB.

Yes, that's what my statement meant. It did not mean ""the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!"
The employer doesn't currently have the say as to IF and WHEN - the employees do. The employer has to option to demand there be a secret ballot. There is nothing wrong with that since the employer is the one who runs the business. If the employees want to form a union - having a SECRET BALLOT shouldn't stop them at all. It's clearly the most "fair" course for all involved, atleast to any RATIONAL person. So again, you went off on a rant that built up some strawman BS that I just didn't say. Next time you should watch what you post so you don't continue to look like a moron.

Yes, people filed with the board - so? That doesn't mean it actually happened. Nor does it mean there also wasn't intimidation the other way. Do you really think all the supposed "intimidation" gets reported? Hell no. So again for you or anyone to claim employers "intimidate" more has no rational basis in fact as real numbers just don't exist on this issue.

The cases I mentioned were cases in which the NLRB adjudicated the case, and explicitly found that the employer had improperly fired/intimidated the employee and ordered his or her reinstatement. So yes, that does mean it actually happened. If you compare this to the same numbers of findings by the NLRB for cases of union intimidation, they are a tiny fraction of this number. A reasonable person would take that to mean that employer intimidation happens more often than union intimidation. Then again, you aren't a reasonable person.

I guess I didn't know that what you were really desperately arguing against was my contention that the employer could choose the date of the election, and so I sincerely apologize for my incorrect use of that word. I think my computer autocorrected my post and added it in.

You know how that is, right?

Good thing for me that you totally shit your pants again in this same post. I'm glad to see you once again endorse the ability of the employer to control the means by which his workers decide whether or not to form a collective bargaining unit though, so my original statement stands. You're fighting for the right of one side in a negotiation to determine the means by which the other side in the negotiation... negotiates. Once again, in what world does any sane person think that? This is mind bogglingly stupid, and it's exactly what I was calling stupid earlier.

 

[Double Trouble]

Bottom line: this legislation would effectively remove a secret ballot. The unions will simply pressure enough people to sign cards, and voila, no secret ballot needed. Anything that removes the secret ballot is a terrible thing, it opens the workers up to abuse from both the employer and the union.

Also, as a side note, anyone who's worked in a union environment knows how difficult it is for the employer to purge crappy workers, so the workforce is inherently less efficient. Of course, there's no doubt companies abuse workers as well, but a worker can always choose to go work for another employer. The era where you only had one possible employer (like the local coal mine or something) is long gone. If I don't like my job, there's a million other places I can choose to work. Any time the worker has realistic options to find other employment (ie, there is competition among employers for talented employees), there is no reason for a union to exist.

This legislation is very similar to the death throws of the RIAA and MPAA who are going to absurd lengths to try and protect their dinosaur paradigm.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Bottom line: this legislation would effectively remove a secret ballot. The unions will simply pressure enough people to sign cards, and voila, no secret ballot needed. Anything that removes the secret ballot is a terrible thing, it opens the workers up to abuse from both the employer and the union.

Also, as a side note, anyone who's worked in a union environment knows how difficult it is for the employer to purge crappy workers, so the workforce is inherently less efficient. Of course, there's no doubt companies abuse workers as well, but a worker can always choose to go work for another employer. The era where you only had one possible employer (like the local coal mine or something) is long gone. If I don't like my job, there's a million other places I can choose to work. Any time the worker has realistic options to find other employment (ie, there is competition among employers for talented employees), there is no reason for a union to exist.

This legislation is very similar to the death throws of the RIAA and MPAA who are going to absurd lengths to try and protect their dinosaur paradigm.

The secret ballot can already be set aside. The only difference between current law and this law is that the employer decides if the unionizing employees use the secret ballot or not. That's silliness.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Hahaha, you're just too stupid to realize what you wrote. In the current situation today, the choice for whether or not those trying to organize a union can use an open ballot or not rests with the employer. You specifically stated that 'it's the way it should be'. The post you replied to only mentioned the differences between current and future law, so that statement must be read by any rational person as an endorsement of current law. IE: the law where the employer gets to decide if the unions organize by secret ballot or open one.

As for your ideas about what constitutes 'whining about intimidation', I guess you should talk to the NLRB about that. A rough estimate shows more than 1,000 workers who were fired in 2005 for organizing efforts, and those are only the ones that were so egregious that they made it all the way to the NLRB.

Yes, that's what my statement meant. It did not mean ""the employer should have the say as to if and when employees decide to form a collective bargaining unit and the means by which they do it!"
The employer doesn't currently have the say as to IF and WHEN - the employees do. The employer has to option to demand there be a secret ballot. There is nothing wrong with that since the employer is the one who runs the business. If the employees want to form a union - having a SECRET BALLOT shouldn't stop them at all. It's clearly the most "fair" course for all involved, atleast to any RATIONAL person. So again, you went off on a rant that built up some strawman BS that I just didn't say. Next time you should watch what you post so you don't continue to look like a moron.

Yes, people filed with the board - so? That doesn't mean it actually happened. Nor does it mean there also wasn't intimidation the other way. Do you really think all the supposed "intimidation" gets reported? Hell no. So again for you or anyone to claim employers "intimidate" more has no rational basis in fact as real numbers just don't exist on this issue.

The cases I mentioned were cases in which the NLRB adjudicated the case, and explicitly found that the employer had improperly fired/intimidated the employee and ordered his or her reinstatement. So yes, that does mean it actually happened. If you compare this to the same numbers of findings by the NLRB for cases of union intimidation, they are a tiny fraction of this number. A reasonable person would take that to mean that employer intimidation happens more often than union intimidation. Then again, you aren't a reasonable person.

I guess I didn't know that what you were really desperately arguing against was my contention that the employer could choose the date of the election, and so I sincerely apologize for my incorrect use of that word. I think my computer autocorrected my post and added it in.

You know how that is, right?

Good thing for me that you totally shit your pants again in this same post. I'm glad to see you once again endorse the ability of the employer to control the means by which his workers decide whether or not to form a collective bargaining unit though, so my original statement stands. You're fighting for the right of one side in a negotiation to determine the means by which the other side in the negotiation... negotiates. Once again, in what world does any sane person think that? This is mind bogglingly stupid, and it's exactly what I was calling stupid earlier.

No, your statement was incorrect as it attempted to make the claim that the employer had the power of if and when and also the means. It has the ONE "power"(more of a check in the system) to request a SECRET VOTE. So no, there was no "desperation" - just the typical irrational BS from you union apologists.

Again, just because more complaints were made to the board doesn't mean those are the intimidation numbers. Clearly there are many cases where it goes unreported to the board for any hosts of reasons. But keep on believing in numbers that can't show the whole picture.

Again, no the employer does not "control" it. It can request it once the organization attempt moves forward. No RATIONAL person would think that is "the employer to control the means by which his workers decide whether or not to form a collective bargaining unit though"

Meh, you obviously won't actually think about this rationally so it's not really worth continuing - which is unfortunately the norm when it comes to you union apologists.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, your statement was incorrect as it attempted to make the claim that the employer had the power of if and when and also the means. It has the ONE "power"(more of a check in the system) to request a SECRET VOTE. So no, there was no "desperation" - just the typical irrational BS from you union apologists.

Again, no the employer does not "control" it. It can request it once the organization attempt moves forward. No RATIONAL person would think that is "the employer to control the means by which his workers decide whether or not to form a collective bargaining unit though"

Meh, you obviously won't actually think about this rationally so it's not really worth continuing - which is unfortunately the norm when it comes to you union apologists.

The employer can force the union to use a secret ballot even if the organizers don't want to. I must be crazy because that sure sounds like he's controlling the means by which they organize to me.

It's okay CAD, I'm not expecting to change your mind on this or anything else. I mean you've showed you can't own up to not understanding the difference between 'mute' and 'moot', what can I really hope for? I just genuinely enjoy beating up on you. You're just as easy a mark as a bunch of the other people on here (like our dearly departed Winnar111), but where they would just take their beatings and ignore it, you get all indignant. It's so much more satisfying to me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, just because more complaints were made to the board doesn't mean those are the intimidation numbers. Clearly there are many cases where it goes unreported to the board for any hosts of reasons. But keep on believing in numbers that can't show the whole picture...

Meh, you obviously won't actually think about this rationally so it's not really worth continuing - which is unfortunately the norm when it comes to you union apologists.

Irony of the week award. You argue against numbers without any evidence, and call the people who cite the best evidence available not rational.

What evidence do you have that the numbers are so wrong as to change the basic situation they reflect?

You're like someone arguing that probably more women rape men than men rape women, because the reported numbers can't be trusted. And then calls the others not rational.

That's really pathetic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again, just because more complaints were made to the board doesn't mean those are the intimidation numbers. Clearly there are many cases where it goes unreported to the board for any hosts of reasons. But keep on believing in numbers that can't show the whole picture...

Meh, you obviously won't actually think about this rationally so it's not really worth continuing - which is unfortunately the norm when it comes to you union apologists.

Irony of the week award. You argue against numbers without any evidence, and call the people who cite the best evidence available not rational.

What evidence do you have that the numbers are so wrong as to change the basic situation they reflect?

You're like someone arguing that probably more women rape men than men rape women, because the reported numbers can't be trusted. And then calls the others not rational.

That's really pathetic.

LOL, no - I wasn't making the claim, I was arguing against a claim that uses numbers that do not represent the whole picture. Yes, the only numbers available are from the NLRB but for anyone to think they give an accurate picture of reality shows their naivety.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, your statement was incorrect as it attempted to make the claim that the employer had the power of if and when and also the means. It has the ONE "power"(more of a check in the system) to request a SECRET VOTE. So no, there was no "desperation" - just the typical irrational BS from you union apologists.

Again, no the employer does not "control" it. It can request it once the organization attempt moves forward. No RATIONAL person would think that is "the employer to control the means by which his workers decide whether or not to form a collective bargaining unit though"

Meh, you obviously won't actually think about this rationally so it's not really worth continuing - which is unfortunately the norm when it comes to you union apologists.

The employer can force the union to use a secret ballot even if the organizers don't want to. I must be crazy because that sure sounds like he's controlling the means by which they organize to me.

It's okay CAD, I'm not expecting to change your mind on this or anything else. I mean you've showed you can't own up to not understanding the difference between 'mute' and 'moot', what can I really hope for? I just genuinely enjoy beating up on you. You're just as easy a mark as a bunch of the other people on here (like our dearly departed Winnar111), but where they would just take their beatings and ignore it, you get all indignant. It's so much more satisfying to me.

Yes, the employer - you know, the one with a vested interest in the business has ONE check in the system. That CHECK is one where they can call for a SECRET VOTE which allows for the most FAIR process for all involved to be used. It gives those who may not want a union(thus not signing a card) a voice to say no.
:laugh: - you think you are "beating up on me"? lol! Irrational... and now delusional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your history...

:roll: still trolling about that word? Wow, i knew you were a troll, but really that is rather childish. Clearly if you looked up my posts(there are many for you use) you'd know I know the difference between the two - I just messed up(which I acknowledged at the time but you still refuse to see). Meh.... troll on...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yes, the employer - you know, the one with a vested interest in the business has ONE check in the system. That CHECK is one where they can call for a SECRET VOTE which allows for the most FAIR process for all involved to be used. It gives those who may not want a union(thus not signing a card) a voice to say no.
:laugh: - you think you are "beating up on me"? lol! Irrational... and now delusional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your history...

:roll: still trolling about that word? Wow, i knew you were a troll, but really that is rather childish. Clearly if you looked up my posts(there are many for you use) you'd know I know the difference between the two - I just messed up(which I acknowledged at the time but you still refuse to see). Meh.... troll on...

No, you sure didn't acknowledge it. You claimed your computer changed the word to the wrong spelling... and then after everyone started making fun of you you ran away.

As long as we're clear that you are endorsing the ability of one side in a negotiation having control over the means by which the other side negotiates, we have nothing more to cover here. I think that's a great thing to leave it at actually.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yes, the employer - you know, the one with a vested interest in the business has ONE check in the system. That CHECK is one where they can call for a SECRET VOTE which allows for the most FAIR process for all involved to be used. It gives those who may not want a union(thus not signing a card) a voice to say no.
:laugh: - you think you are "beating up on me"? lol! Irrational... and now delusional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your history...

:roll: still trolling about that word? Wow, i knew you were a troll, but really that is rather childish. Clearly if you looked up my posts(there are many for you use) you'd know I know the difference between the two - I just messed up(which I acknowledged at the time but you still refuse to see). Meh.... troll on...

No, you sure didn't acknowledge it. You claimed your computer changed the word to the wrong spelling... and then after everyone started making fun of you you ran away.

As long as we're clear that you are endorsing the ability of one side in a negotiation having control over the means by which the other side negotiates, we have nothing more to cover here. I think that's a great thing to leave it at actually.

again, troll - you can believe what you wish but the fact is, it was acknowledged.

lol, the organizers have the control in the existing process - the employer does however have ONE check in the system where they can request a SECRET VOTE. Again, if you think having a SECRET VOTE means "control" then there is zero reason for anyone to discuss this further with you due to irrationality.
So do you really think allowing the employer a SINGLE check in the system really constitutes "control"?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

again, troll - you can believe what you wish but the fact is, it was acknowledged.

lol, the organizers have the control in the existing process - the employer does however have ONE check in the system where they can request a SECRET VOTE. Again, if you think having a SECRET VOTE means "control" then there is zero reason for anyone to discuss this further with you due to irrationality.
So do you really think allowing the employer a SINGLE check in the system really constitutes "control"?

Of course the employer shouldn't have any checks on how his employees relate to one another. They aren't his property. Should the employees have control over how the employer negotiates? Of course not, that would be insane as well.

Like I said before, you're CAD. If I were looking for rational discussion I wouldn't be talking to you. I'm just enjoying making fun of you.

Oh, and for your 'mute'-'moot' thing you 'acknowledged it' by making up a story about your computer.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yes, the employer - you know, the one with a vested interest in the business has ONE check in the system. That CHECK is one where they can call for a SECRET VOTE which allows for the most FAIR process for all involved to be used. It gives those who may not want a union(thus not signing a card) a voice to say no.
:laugh: - you think you are "beating up on me"? lol! Irrational... and now delusional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your history...

:roll: still trolling about that word? Wow, i knew you were a troll, but really that is rather childish. Clearly if you looked up my posts(there are many for you use) you'd know I know the difference between the two - I just messed up(which I acknowledged at the time but you still refuse to see). Meh.... troll on...

No, you sure didn't acknowledge it. You claimed your computer changed the word to the wrong spelling... and then after everyone started making fun of you you ran away.

As long as we're clear that you are endorsing the ability of one side in a negotiation having control over the means by which the other side negotiates, we have nothing more to cover here. I think that's a great thing to leave it at actually.

again, troll - you can believe what you wish but the fact is, it was acknowledged.

lol, the organizers have the control in the existing process - the employer does however have ONE check in the system where they can request a SECRET VOTE. Again, if you think having a SECRET VOTE means "control" then there is zero reason for anyone to discuss this further with you due to irrationality.
So do you really think allowing the employer a SINGLE check in the system really constitutes "control"?

Forgive me for interjecting here, as I don't usually like to get in the middle of a lively exchange. However, it might be useful for me to say that Management has more control over its employees than what's apparent, especially so when considering wether to have their employees organized with one voice or not.

Management has, and will always have many intangible "controls" and "checks" over its employees. Intimidation is a given, followed by vague notions of hard to prove retaliatory actions in the form of denying promotions, favoritism etc., overzealous use of company policies, the use of subterfuge in the grey areas of the SOP or Company Policies, the use of budgeting to punish a certain group or class of employees, manipulating employees to divide and conquer, and that's just to name a very few, and these tactics are all legal and very effective when played out to the very margins of the law.

Unionizing a shop takes away a lot of these "Management's Rights Prerogatives" that Management uses to "control" their employees, and Management does not like it when they lose the use of these very effective tools.

Not saying that all business owners use these tools exclusively for punitive reasons, but a lot of them do.

edit- spl

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

again, troll - you can believe what you wish but the fact is, it was acknowledged.

lol, the organizers have the control in the existing process - the employer does however have ONE check in the system where they can request a SECRET VOTE. Again, if you think having a SECRET VOTE means "control" then there is zero reason for anyone to discuss this further with you due to irrationality.
So do you really think allowing the employer a SINGLE check in the system really constitutes "control"?

Of course the employer shouldn't have any checks on how his employees relate to one another. They aren't his property. Should the employees have control over how the employer negotiates? Of course not, that would be insane as well.

It's not a matter of "checks on how his employees relate to one another". It's the ONE check in the system of organizing and it really doesn't give them any "power" - it is only for a SECRET VOTE to take place instead of a group of people pushing their will on all employees without a real vote.
No, the employees shouldn't have "control" over how the employer negotiates and neither should the employer over the employee. However, this isn't about negotiations - this is about the process of union organization. But back to "negotiations" - the union distorts the employee/employer relationship and thereby distorts the "negotiation" process as it strips the employee from having an individual say and likewise it strips the employer from having a say on individual employees. But again, that's a different subject and not related to the process of organizing - which you people want to change for the worse.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yes, the employer - you know, the one with a vested interest in the business has ONE check in the system. That CHECK is one where they can call for a SECRET VOTE which allows for the most FAIR process for all involved to be used. It gives those who may not want a union(thus not signing a card) a voice to say no.
:laugh: - you think you are "beating up on me"? lol! Irrational... and now delusional. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your history...

:roll: still trolling about that word? Wow, i knew you were a troll, but really that is rather childish. Clearly if you looked up my posts(there are many for you use) you'd know I know the difference between the two - I just messed up(which I acknowledged at the time but you still refuse to see). Meh.... troll on...

No, you sure didn't acknowledge it. You claimed your computer changed the word to the wrong spelling... and then after everyone started making fun of you you ran away.

As long as we're clear that you are endorsing the ability of one side in a negotiation having control over the means by which the other side negotiates, we have nothing more to cover here. I think that's a great thing to leave it at actually.

again, troll - you can believe what you wish but the fact is, it was acknowledged.

lol, the organizers have the control in the existing process - the employer does however have ONE check in the system where they can request a SECRET VOTE. Again, if you think having a SECRET VOTE means "control" then there is zero reason for anyone to discuss this further with you due to irrationality.
So do you really think allowing the employer a SINGLE check in the system really constitutes "control"?

Forgive me for interjecting here, as I don't usually like to get in the middle of a lively exchange. However, it might be useful for me to say that Management has more control over its employees than what's apparent, especially so when considering wether to have their employees organized with one voice or not.

Management has, and will always have many intangible "controls" and "checks" over its employees. Intimidation is a given, followed by vague notions of hard to prove retaliatory actions in the form of denying promotions, favoritism etc., overzealous use of company policies, the use of subterfuge in the grey areas of the SOP or Company Policies, the use of budgeting to punish a certain group or class of employees, manipulating employees to divide and conquer, and that's just to name a very few, and these tactics are all legal and very effective when played out to the very margins of the law.

Unionizing a shop takes away a lot of these "Management's Rights Prerogatives" that Management uses to "control" their employees, and Management does not like it when they lose the use of these very effective tools.

Not saying that all business owners use these tools exclusively for punitive reasons, but a lot of them do.

edit- spl

Sure, that can happen, but it can also happen the other way when a union is involved. But the reality is - the owner/management runs the company - the employees(union types) do not. If management really is that "bad" then don't you think people should look to work elsewhere? Seriously - the employer/employee relationship should benefit both - thus if you feel it does not as an employee - you are free to leave at any point.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Seriously - the employer/employee relationship should benefit both - thus if you feel it does not as an employee - you are free to leave at any point.

Or organize. Of course the employer is free to fire them. Then again if their vendors are Union they are free to boycott said employer

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

If I understand it and I may not. The employees not the union organizer chooses which. Either the secret ballot or the card sign method.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

The lack of regulation is not in question in my mind the lack of enforcement is sometimes absent. At the time of the "Ludlow Massacre" having people murdered because they refused to work for you was against the law. And yet no one was prosecuted.



....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Kwatt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice load of spin...
While this mislabeled legislation does not "remove" the secret ballot, it does allow organizers to not have one if they so decide. So what union organizer would want a secret ballot when they can just go get people to sign a card? It's hilarious that people actually buy into this type of legislation. It doesn't give workers a "choice" - it actually removes the protection to ALL affected workers of a SECRET ballot.

If I understand it and I may not. The employees not the union organizer chooses which. Either the secret ballot or the card sign method.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Also, we've heard the "history" BS from you union apologists. Yes, we all know they were formed out of a need for worker protection but that time has passed as the gov't has now stepped in and regulated the hell out of most everything involving employment.

The lack of regulation is not in question in my mind the lack of enforcement is sometimes absent. At the time of the "Ludlow Massacre" having people murdered because they refused to work for you was against the law. And yet no one was prosecuted.

Yep, that is the case, but what union organizer would even suggest the option if they already know x% signed cards?

I'm not sure what that incident has to do with my comments about the history of need vs today's regulation done by the gov't.