All that is needed is once the petition reaches the tipping point and an election is mandated is for the employees to have an election with secret ballots.
That pretty much eliminates the issue of goonion intimidation.
And the issue is goonion intimidation. After all, what's an employee going to do if intimidated by his employer? Natch, he's going goonion, so employers have a natural reluctance to intimidate anyone on that matter.
But, let's pretend your scenario is likely, though history of goonion behavior in the 20th century says my scenario is more likely by 95%. What better way to prevent employer retribution than a secret ballot?
What's wrong with a secret ballot, I ask? The goonions can't find out who to punish.
And not one person surrenders his right to freely assemble by demanding a secret ballot.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-13-09 at 12:18 AM.
the existing 30% showing of interest, followed by an election, will continue to be allowed under the new law
and the union (as well as management) presently receives the signups showing who agreed to be among the 30% ... so how does that eliminate the potential intimidation by the union of the 70% who did not yet sign up
and significantly, how does that prevent the management intimidation of the 30% who did
wel, since the union is behind the initiative it would appear you have adopted the management position on the issueAnd the issue is goonion intimidation.
not surprised you would work against your self interest ... much as the red necks who twice elected dicknbush to lower their standard of living. just not smart enough to know they were being played
but if that employee is disciplined and suspended from work without pay ... conincident with the period of the election, he doesn't get to vote. or, more frequently, the employee is terminated for some fabricated reason, which the smart employer, who hired a union busting legal staff to document, will make sure has nothing to do with union organizing - since that is activity protected by lawAfter all, what's an employee going to do if intimidated by his employer? Natch, he's going goonion, so employers have a natural reluctance to intimidate anyone on that matter.
the union orginizer gets busted and be assured that chills the interest of the other employees. not even close to a level playing field. but again, folks like you are without the wisdom to recognize when they work against their own self interest
oops, because the employer knows who that 30% were who signed up to allow an election to proceed, they now know who to get rid of to quell the possible union organizing. what is the use of a secret ballot when the voters are not available to cast their voteBut, let's pretend your scenario is likely, though history of goonion behavior in the 20th century says my scenario is more likely by 95%. What better way to prevent employer retribution than a secret ballot?
again, putting your profound ignorance on displayWhy, nothing.
as if this whole issue is being pushed by the union bcause of something that has no negative effect on its ability to organize
when you get to high school, they will have this class called "logic". take it
nothing is wrong with a secret ballotWhat's wrong with a secret ballot, I ask? The goonions can't find out who to punish.
And not one person surrenders his right to freely assemble by demanding a secret ballot.
the problem is it is not actually a secret ballot
both management and the union are provided a list of those who signed up, which showing of 30% or more authorizes the election to go forward
only in your world would someone believe that the 30% showing of employees is a list of people who are not pro union ...
when in fact they have put their jobs on the line to show their interest in a union presence
and knowing who they are allows the union to intimidate them
secret my ass
the present union organizing practice is to try to solicit the interest of 50% plus one - enough to carry the election, right out of the box. however, the current management practice is to eliminate enough employees from that 50% plus one so that by the time the election is held, it has terminated enough of the "right" employees to keep from losing the election
and it is not that difficult to do, getting rid of "problem" employees who want to start a unionized bargaining unit. especially in these times when there are lots of folks looking for work
that could not happen under the new law
the employers now have a huge advantage and they do not want to give it up
If unions would police their members instead of protecting them when wrong, employers would be more prone to accepting them. But my work experience since 1977 (omitting my navy years) is that the unions will protect the lazy, the inept, and even the corrupt.
Why would any competent worker want to be paid the same as those who either can't or won't perform to certain standards?
OTOH, management tends to use union wage scales as a measuring stick to determine what to pay non-union workers. One of my jobs, as a tech in a nuclear research facility, I was clearly much better trained, and more capable, and more willing compared to the half dozen other workers, but I couldn't make a dime more. They had seniority, but seniority doesn't always equate to ability.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
unions, by federal law, MUST represent ALL bargaining unit employees, whether they are dues paying members or not
the union does NOT get to decide who it will and will not represent. the law already said it will represent ALL of labor
and you are absolutely correct. most of the crap the unions are called on to deal with are caused by the few problem employees
but the law says we must defend the indefensible, to the best of our abilities
not unlike a public defender representing the dregs of society
what has been ignored is the wholesale incompetence of management, which allows the union to prevail
those corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees SHOULD be dealt with
do you really think that the union - the people working at the facility - want to be held back by the ones who cause problems and do not carry their own weight?
where there is a union, there will be a union contract describing the procedures for dealing with problem employees
but the managers are usually too lazy to read the contract ... or even just the portion that deals with disciplinary measures
those managers are usually too lazy to document ... yes, document the problems created by the employee so that the provisions of the contract can be followed ... resulting in that employee being disciplined/terminated
those lazy managers make it easy for the union to then defend the employees who deserve to be disciplined/terminated
just as incompetent prosecutors allow thugs to leave the courtroom free of punishment
you see unions as the problem, but their effective presence is only a symptom of the problems we have in the work place
which is why other nations are eating our economic lunch
Obviously they do, or they wouldn't spend so much time defending them. And if they don't want to be held back by corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees, the best thing to do is to not have the union in the first place so it won't even be an issue.Originally Posted by justabubba
Riiiiiight. THAT'S why one unionized company after another is unable to compete with its non-union counterparts. The contracts are just too hard for the corporate lawyers to understand.Originally Posted by justabubba
Toyota and Honda treat their workers just as well as GM and Chrysler. Their hourly pay and benefits are approximately the same. The difference is that the Japanese auto manufacturers don't have to worry about moronic union agreements, such as setting production quotas that workers can meet after only six hours...after which they can either go home or be paid overtime. They don't have to worry about ridiculously generous retirement benefits, and can instead offer benefits more comparable to the market. Oh, and Toyota and Honda aren't in Chapter 11.Originally Posted by justabubba
Last edited by Kandahar; 06-13-09 at 11:24 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
the right of participation in the union is provided by law. are you opposed to the law or rights?
the union rep has no ability NOT to spend time representing the problem employee. it is required by federal lawObviously they do, or they wouldn't spend so much time defending them. And if they don't want to be held back by corrupt, lazy, incompetent employees, the best thing to do is to not have the union in the first place so it won't even be an issue.
and if the workplace was one in which the employees felt fairly treated, chances are that no one would have put their career on the line to originally organize the union, such that over half of the employees voted for union representation
there are all kinds of unionized workplaces that continue to operate profitably. the failure of the domestic auto manufacturers was proscribed in a 1989 book titled the reckoning; i encourage you to read it and educate yourself. the poor management of the big three is what has caused the demise of that industry ... david halberstam explained it in '89 and it has only gotten worse. but for those who prefer to remain ignorant, blaming the union is an easy alternativeRiiiiiight. THAT'S why one unionized company after another is unable to compete with its non-union counterparts. The contracts are just too hard for the corporate lawyers to understand.
excellent pointToyota and Honda treat their workers just as well as GM and Chrysler. Their hourly pay and benefits are approximately the same. The difference is that the Japanese auto manufacturers don't have to worry about moronic union agreements, such as setting production quotas that workers can meet after only six hours...after which they can either go home or be paid overtime. They don't have to worry about ridiculously generous retirement benefits, and can instead offer benefits more comparable to the market. Oh, and Toyota and Honda aren't in Chapter 11.
those companies are NOT exempt from being organized
only their enlightened management has found that it is better - and cheaper - to treat their employees properly rather than as adversaries
should they begin practices abusive of labor, then anticipate them becoming unionized facilities as well
And with a secret ballot, that 20%+1 is allowed the freedom to say no to goonions in perfect privacy and perfect safety.
Whatta ya got against secret ballots, other than the fact that people can use them to protect themselves against goonion infestation without fear of reprisal?
Since you're so irrationally terrified of management intimidation, why are you demanding the names of the workers stupid enough to want a goonion be revealed to the employer?
I know this.
Since I don't support goonions, I'm definitely not a stooge.
What did the stooge do to get almost fired for?
Employers should be able to fire anyone, anytime, for any reason.
It's the employer's job, after all.
Welcome to what's real.
Sounds fair to me.
Goonion organizers are allowed to physically attack goonion non-supporters, they're allowed to harass them, they're allowed to vandalize the property of workers who don't want goonion involvement, so why shouldn't goonion supporters be fired when so desired?
Oh, the vote happens in the privacy of a booth, where the goonion stooges can't find out who voted "no". That's your problem.
There's ways to make the entire process transparent to both goonion and the people with a financial interest in the company.
Why haven't you addressed this?
Unlike employers, who should certainly be completely free to fire and hire anyone they want, what basis does a goonion stooge have for intimidating anyone at all?
It's their company, not the goonion's.
It's their jobs, not the workers.
Welcome to reality.
The price of incompetence in business if failure, whether it be caused by management or goonion. The company's owners pay the price for inefficiency.
That negotiation is never going to happen because the goonion do want as many incompetent boobs who are completely aware that their jobs and their livelihood are owed to the goonion and will be willing to be the muscle that forces the more intelligent people into line with the goonion leadership.
Because my eyes are open.
I don't feel like the government should be involved in unions whatsoever.
I strongly support the right of people to get together, agree on a list of demands, and elect some person, maybe even an outside representative, to contact the business owner or CEO and threaten to strike (or whatever it is unions do) if those demands aren't met. I also strongly support the right of that business owner or CEO to immediately fire any employee involved with that shakedown. In my opinion, a business has just as much right to fire you as you do to quit, for any reason, and just as I would be opposed to any law that keeps me from quitting my job on a whim, I would also be opposed to any law that keeps my employer from firing me on a whim.