View Poll Results: Do you favore the Employee Free Choice Act

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I am completely in favor of the act

    2 5.71%
  • Yes, I am in favor, but with some reservations

    2 5.71%
  • No, I am opposed, but with some reservations

    3 8.57%
  • No, I am totally opposed

    25 71.43%
  • Don't know, Don't care.

    3 8.57%
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 74

Thread: Employee Free Choice Act

  1. #1
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,443
    Blog Entries
    2

    Employee Free Choice Act

    I have been hearing alot on Employee Free Choice Act lately. Partly it is a local thing, being in Michigan where the auto industry is big, and partly on some of the cable news channels. I am wondering what people think about this.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act]Employee Free Choice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his or her colleagues.[3] Once 30% of the work force in a particular workplace bargaining unit has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization.[3] In practice, the results of the card check usually are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of bargaining-unit employees have signed the cards.[3] If the employer decides to demand an election, and the majority of votes in the election favor the union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certify it as the exclusive representative of the employees of that particular bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

    If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards.[1] The EFCA would take away employers' present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check.[3][4] The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.[3][5]
    For those who have never been through it, what basically happens in the process is something like this: Union decides or is invited to try and unionize a shop. Employees in the shop run around getting people to sign "cards" if they can get 30 % of those up for unionization to sign, they can submit the cards and ask for an election. Wiki says usually unionizers hold off till they get over 50 %, but I know from experience this is not exclusively true. The employer now can either give in and admit the union or demand an election.

    The Employee Free Choice Act would change the rules so that if the organizers can get over 50 % of the effected employees to sign the "card", the NLRB will certify the union and the shop would then be unionized, with the only possible way to hold it off would be to get 30 % of those effected to petiiton for a secret ballot.

    So, are you for or against this, and why?
    Last edited by Redress; 06-03-09 at 08:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The Employee Free Choice Act would change the rules so that if the organizers can get over 50 % of the effected employees to sign the "card", the NLRB will certify the union and the shop would then be unionized, with the only possible way to hold it off would be to get 30 % of those effected to petiiton for a secret ballot.

    So, are you for or against this, and why?
    This is the reason this bill stinks to high heaven.

    If over 50% of the workers in a workplace truly want a union, the secret ballot poses no hardship. If over 50% of the workers do not want a union, requiring them to petition for a secret ballot is a hardship--particularly in a scenario where coercive methods were used to get signatures on the original cards (and coercive methods have been used by unionizers in the past, just as they have been used by companies to bust up unionizing efforts).

    The secret ballot is the ultimate sanctuary for both sides. It eliminates the possibility of intimidation and reprisal on either side.

    Calling this bill "free choice" is an obscenity, because it is anything but. By reducing the unionizing activity to the very public act of card signing, it throws open the door for abuse by both sides. Unionizers have every incentive to "persuade" employees to sign the cards, business owners and managers have every incentive to "persuade" employees not to sign.

    Current law sets a very reasonable threshold of 30% to call the election--that union organizers hold back until they have 50% or more is a tactical choice on their part (a wise choice, at that). No shop that wants union representation is denied that representation under current law. This bill solves a problem that absolutely does not exist in this country.

    This bill should be called the Employee Injury Maximization Act--because the one certain effect of this perversity will be to raise the frequency and severity of union-related workplace violence.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    It requires a person to make a public statement for or against a position and introduces the strong prospect of coercion and intimidation from the employer for signing the check and from the union goon for refusing to sign.

    How does the employee win if the result of union intimidation is unionization and how does he win if he willingly signs yet the unionization attempt fails?

    The correct way to do this is to have (strange idea) secret ballots.

    1) Unions should be required to get a minimum of 30% employer acquiescence, collected by an independent signing agency paid for by the union, which both collects signatures and verifies their validity without ever showing those signatures to either the union or the employer (this requires an element of trust, and there are ways to make this anonymous).

    2) If the 30% mark is certified, then the election is held by traditional closed balloting procedures, and regardless of the outcome, the signature cards are destroyed, so neither employer nor union ever knows who to blame for any stage of the process.

  4. #4
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    This bill is extremely undemocratic. The name of the bill itself is Orwellian, since this is the exact OPPOSITE of free choice.

    There is absolutely NO valid reason to do away with the secret ballot. None. All this does is allow union thugs to intimidate workers.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #5
    Traditional
    hiswoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Last Seen
    04-04-13 @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,051
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    A person's vote for or against any ballot item should never be made public.

  6. #6
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,322

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    it is a good bill which could be made much more palatable with one modification

    rather than allowing the union to be the recipient of the signed forms, the employees should be required to send their completed forms to the department of labor. neither the employer nor the union would know who did and who did not vote for a union election to be held

    now, if the DOL receives 50% plus one ballot from the employees requesting a union, then those cards should be found the equivalent of an election ballot and the bargaining unit certified. the election is redundant at that point since 50% plus one is what is required to certify the work site a bargaining unit. sending the cards directly to DOL eliminates the union's ability to intimidate members into signing them. eliminating the need for an election with that 50% plus one showing eliminates the opportunity for the employer to retaliate against employees and adversely affect the election outcome

  7. #7
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,443
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    The factory I work in(when not laid off) had been the subject of an attempt by the UAW to unionize, so I got a good first hand view of the process. People have zeroed in on the big problem I see with this bill. The "card" signing part of the process is rife with abuse as is. For about 2 months, it was pure hell going into work. Unionizers in the shop had lists of who had not signed, and who refused to sign, and they made these lists public to every one in favor of the union. This led to lots and lots of harassment. Thankfully, the efforts of the union supporters, and the UAW itself left a bad enough taste with people that we voted down the union, and when they got a judge to decide that unfair practices where used in the process(telling people to get back to work is unfair) and forced another election, we voted them down again.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Sounds very familiar. My wife's company is non-union and will never unionize, but the employees are all treated wonderfully and there is no desire by any of them to go union. That doesn't stop the unions from terrorizing the shop constantly, they've had union members and leaders break into the building and steal computers (they were arrested when video cameras caught them doing it), slashing work truck tires (again, video cameras are your friend), etc. People who work there have been personally harassed, threatened and lied to by union organizers, but as soon as anyone complains, the union is fast to distance themselves from the "radical elements who act on their own"... yeah, sure.

    I'll be the first one to say I want to see the day when all unions everywhere are shut down entirely.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  9. #9
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,443
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Sounds very familiar. My wife's company is non-union and will never unionize, but the employees are all treated wonderfully and there is no desire by any of them to go union. That doesn't stop the unions from terrorizing the shop constantly, they've had union members and leaders break into the building and steal computers (they were arrested when video cameras caught them doing it), slashing work truck tires (again, video cameras are your friend), etc. People who work there have been personally harassed, threatened and lied to by union organizers, but as soon as anyone complains, the union is fast to distance themselves from the "radical elements who act on their own"... yeah, sure.

    I'll be the first one to say I want to see the day when all unions everywhere are shut down entirely.
    Yeah. Don't even get me started on the vandalism during the process we dealt with. We never could prove who did it, but it was mostly those against the union by about 4 to 1 who had their cars keyed.

  10. #10
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Employee Free Choice Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yeah. Don't even get me started on the vandalism during the process we dealt with. We never could prove who did it, but it was mostly those against the union by about 4 to 1 who had their cars keyed.
    Like I said, video cameras are your friend. I forgot the time that there was a "union rally" going on outside and a rock came sailing through the front window, almost hitting the receptionist. The police showed up, nobody could prove who threw the rock and the union claimed it must have been someone not associated with the union. They had to replace the window via an insurance claim.

    Yes, these are wonderful people, these union asshats.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •