GOP lawmakers introduce bill to require union recertification

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
We all know what happens in a union election. Employers hire experts at $500-$1,000/hour who are VERY good at convincing people to vote against unions. We KNOW employers put illegal pressure on employees and with a Republican in the WH, we can't look to NLRB to give a damn.

More petulant excuses why there should never be a re-election unless except in those rare cases where employees risk their careers covertly organizing against the union to set up the petition and navigate the maze Big Labor and the NLRB set up for them to be able to hold a recertification/decertification election.

I don't care that you're against unions, just don't pretend that it's about rights or the workers.

I am 100% admittedly against unions, but that doesn't make this issue somehow not about the rights of workers. The rights of workers are trampled by unions regardless of how personally against unions I am.

If the workers don't like unions they have two options. 1) Work somewhere else,

I'm not in a union, nor will I ever be. They are utterly detestable and I refuse to work for an employer under union conditions.

or 2) go through the steps to decertify. No one's rights are being trampled.

Yes they are. Just have reelections every now and then. We do this with virtually every other type of election there is.

Who in this country is forced to take a union job?

Anyone who works in 30-45% of government jobs that exist in the remaining states that have not passed Right To Work laws.

So what? I've held a lot of jobs and never got the chance to vote FOR a union. Woe is me I guess....

Your complacency doesn't make a convincing case why union elections should be special in that there are no automatic re-elections, ever, rather employees should have to take significant personal and professional risk and considerable effort navigating an arbitrarily difficult procedure to get one going.

JasperL · Nov 16, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
More petulant excuses why there should never be a re-election unless except in those rare cases where employees risk their careers covertly organizing against the union to set up the petition and navigate the maze Big Labor and the NLRB set up for them to be able to hold a recertification/decertification election.

I am 100% admittedly against unions, but that doesn't make this issue somehow not about the rights of workers. The rights of workers are trampled by unions regardless of how personally against unions I am.

I'm not in a union, nor will I ever be. They are utterly detestable and I refuse to work for an employer under union conditions.

Yes they are. Just have reelections every now and then. We do this with virtually every other type of election there is.

Anyone who works in 30-45% of government jobs that exist in the remaining states that have not passed Right To Work laws.

Your complacency doesn't make a convincing case why union elections should be special in that there are no automatic re-elections, ever, rather employees should have to take significant personal and professional risk and considerable effort navigating an arbitrarily difficult procedure to get one going.

There are several points I disagree with, but the bottom line is we aren't going to convince the other so I'll just leave it here.

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
There are several points I disagree with, but the bottom line is we aren't going to convince the other so I'll just leave it here.

I don’t see the exchange as me trying to convince you of something or you trying to convince me of something, rather I have asked a pointed question, which is why union elections should be unlike every other type of election in that there is no automatic reelection opportunity, ever.

From what I can gather from your responses, your answer to the question is simply because it’s not good for unions that their members would have a routine opportunity to vote again. That’s it. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason.

JasperL · Nov 16, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
I don’t see the exchange as me trying to convince you of something or you trying to convince me of something, rather I have asked a pointed question, which is why union elections should be unlike every other type of election in that there is no automatic reelection opportunity, ever.

From what I can gather from your responses, your answer to the question is simply because it’s not good for unions that their members would have a routine opportunity to vote again. That’s it. I don’t think that’s a good enough reason.

You want regular union elections? Great! Every 5 or 10 years every workforce, union or not, holds a binding vote on whether or not to unionize or remain so! We can agree on that, right?

HowardBThiname · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
That's a pretty misleading picture of the Hostess issue. They didn't just get rid of union contracts, they fired something like 85% of the workers and automated the plants, changed the entire distribution system, unloaded all the debt of the previous company including accumulated employee benefits and more. So they started with a few of the old assets, mostly the name, and started a new company from scratch.

I don't think saying the new owners "fired" them is an accurate assessment. Prior to Hostess going belly up, they tried to negotiate with the workers but the workers refused to budge. This went on for months. Hostess warned them that they would have to close their doors - -the workers still didn't budge. So, Hostess went under.

Those employees lost their jobs in that moment. That's not on the new owners. The new owners understood that they could not run the business any better than the old owners if they didn't start fresh with a new plan.

Instead of saying they fired them -- why not say the "saved" the jobs of 15% of the workers who lost their jobs? Had the new owners not made that deal -- we wouldn't be eating Twinkies today? Did I mention they taste a bit like Tide detergent? Maybe Proctor and Gamble should have bought them out.

I'm not reflexively pro or anti-union. I'm sure 'organized labor' didn't help the company in that situation but we know because we can see examples all over the world that unions are not incompatible with business - they weren't incompatible with our economy for a half century or more. My point in this thread was that the rules are intended to get rid of unions and have nothing to do with workers' rights or protecting workers, but giving employers a regular chance to kill the unions they despise.

There was a time in the history of this country when unions did something beneficial, and it largely revolved around safety in the workplace. But, they got out of control and decided they could dictate every little rule. That was a mistake, and, in my opinion, what did them in.

The reasons for the early unions are over. OSHA handles safety now, in a way the unions really can't. In fact, I've been on big construction jobs where workers will radio to other workers on the upper levels of the buildings and warn them that OSHA is on the premises. The workers roll up their tools and walk off the job. It happens all the time. OSHA now goes after the unions -- it goes after everyone. I've seen BA's cash illegal's checks -- and keep a big chunk for themselves.

We've outgrown the unions, in my opinion. And, I say -- good riddance.

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
You want regular union elections? Great! Every 5 or 10 years every workforce, union or not, holds a binding vote on whether or not to unionize or remain so! We can agree on that, right?

Five years is a pretty long time by almost any standard for holding re-elections, and ten years is unheard of, and with the median time in a job being less than 5 years according to BLS, I would say you're trying to be as exceedingly generous as possible to Big Labor with that type of proposal. However, even that exceedingly generous proposal is still way better than the ridiculous status quo, which offers employees zero opportunity for regular re-elections and more than 9 out of 10 union workers nationally have never personally had the opportunity to vote on it themselves.

But I'm glad to see to see you have changed your mind about regular union elections. Previously you relegated the entire idea to this:

JasperL said:
This is all a way to get rid of unions... it's a naked attempt to give employers a regular shot at spending lots of money and hiring experts to undermine unions.

Regular reauthorization elections would merely make a small improvement to the ridiculousness of never getting to vote again even decades after the original vote took place. But ultimately there is no real need for these silly all-or-nothing elections concerning unionism one way or another.

It should be each individual's voluntary choice to send part of their pay to a union for representation and whatever other employment-related support services unions want to offer. Janus v. AFSCME and Hill v. SEIU prevailing would take major steps toward that.

iliveonramen · Nov 16, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
It's a step in the right direction. Union membership is at an all-time low for good reason -- workers shy away from overbearing union regulations with which they often don't agree.

In the final run -- it should be the workers who decide whether they do or do not want to be represented by a union. Many do not.

Wages are also at an all time low. For some reason, those corporations don't seem to be passing along those record profits...I wonder why that is?

AlbqOwl · Nov 16, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
It's a step in the right direction. Union membership is at an all-time low for good reason -- workers shy away from overbearing union regulations with which they often don't agree.

In the final run -- it should be the workers who decide whether they do or do not want to be represented by a union. Many do not.

Can't argue with that. I do question, however, whether it should be a federal matter. I would rather the states establish the rules for the unions in their states.

I would hope all states would require the unions to allow their members to periodically vote on whether they wish to be unionized. That shouldn't be too much of a burden if it was like every two or three or five years.

JasperL · Nov 16, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
Five years is a pretty long time by almost any standard for holding re-elections, and ten years is unheard of, and with the median time in a job being less than 5 years according to BLS, I would say you're trying to be as exceedingly generous as possible to Big Labor with that type of proposal. However, even that exceedingly generous proposal is still way better than the ridiculous status quo, which offers employees zero opportunity for regular re-elections and more than 9 out of 10 union workers nationally have never personally had the opportunity to vote on it themselves.

Ultimately there is no real need for all-or-nothing elections concerning unionism one way or another. It should be each individual's voluntary choice to send part of their pay to a union for representation and whatever other employment-related support services unions want to offer. Janus v. AFSCME and Hill v. SEIU prevailing would take major steps toward that.

My point was if you want to be "fair" to workers and give them a real choice, then require Walmart and McDonalds, Amazon, Target, and every currently NON-union employer to also have regular union/no-union elections on the same basis and on the same schedule as unionized workforce. That might require annual elections at Walmart and other low-wage employers given their high turnover rates! Great!! I'm glad we can agree on that. :roll:

As to making union dues voluntary, sure. And while we're at it using the same "logic" let's make my property taxes voluntary, but still allow me full access to roads, schools, police, the public library, fire, etc.! I don't see why that would be a problem - giving freeloaders the same benefits as dues paying (or tax paying) individuals....

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
My point was if you want to be "fair" to workers and give them a real choice, then require Walmart and McDonalds, Amazon, Target, and every currently NON-union employer to also have regular union/no-union elections on the same basis and on the same schedule as unionized workforce.

A real choice means an individual one. Unions aren't elected government officials, they provide a service that should be paid for by people who want that service, and not paid for by people who don't want that service. It shouldn't be rigged to prohibit people from having employment representation just because 51% or more co-workers didn't want it, and on the other side of the coin, forcing representation upon people just because 51% of co-workers did want it.

That might require annual elections at Walmart and other low-wage employers given their high turnover rates! Great!! I'm glad we can agree on that. :roll:

I don't care if people want to spend their money for assistance with complicated things. Contracts are complicated things, and employment is a type of contract. It's not unusual for parties to a contract to seek expert help and support navigating their contracts to make sure they aren't being exploited. You just shouldn't be able to coerce people to pay for it or receive it if they don't want it, nor prohibit people from paying for it and receiving it if they do want it. There is no good reason for these all-or-nothing elections in the first place. But as a first step, at least letting a re-election take place normally and automatically would be a big improvement from the rigged status quo.

As to making union dues voluntary, sure. And while we're at it using the same "logic" let's make my property taxes voluntary,

Ah, no, you don't get to conflate union dues with the taxing power of government itself. I do agree with actual taxes (which dues are not) helping to fund departments of labor that help regulate and adjudicate employment problems, which we already do in this country independently of the existence of unions. Government has a responsibility to uphold fair dealing in contracts, of which employment is one example. So actual taxes could be collected to pay for this legitimate governmental function. No unions necessary.

JasperL · Nov 16, 2017

Neomalthusian said:
A real choice means an individual one. Unions aren't elected government officials, they provide a service that should be paid for by people who want that service, and not paid for by people who don't want that service. It shouldn't be rigged to prohibit people from having employment representation just because 51% or more co-workers didn't want it, and on the other side of the coin, forcing representation upon people just because 51% of co-workers did want it.

I don't care if people want to spend their money for assistance with complicated things. Contracts are complicated things, and employment is a type of contract. It's not unusual for parties to a contract to seek expert help and support navigating their contracts to make sure they aren't being exploited. You just shouldn't be able to coerce people to pay for it or receive it if they don't want it, nor prohibit people from paying for it and receiving it if they do want it. There is no good reason for these all-or-nothing elections in the first place. But as a first step, at least letting a re-election take place normally and automatically would be a big improvement from the rigged status quo.

Ah, no, you don't get to conflate union dues with the taxing power of government itself. I do agree with actual taxes (which dues are not) helping to fund departments of labor that help regulate and adjudicate employment problems, which we already do in this country independently of the existence of unions. Government has a responsibility to uphold fair dealing in contracts, of which employment is one example. So actual taxes could be collected to pay for this legitimate governmental function. No unions necessary.

No offense but this is the reason I should have bowed out long ago. We don't agree on unions, won't agree on unions and the discussion has gone far afield from the OP.

Neomalthusian · Nov 16, 2017

JasperL said:
No offense but this is the reason I should have bowed out long ago. We don't agree on unions, won't agree on unions and the discussion has gone far afield from the OP.

I don't take offense. I am a proponent of government regulations of labor, ethical standards for employment and enforcement of unethical conduct by employers (or employees), and a proponent of fair and adequate compensation policies for public sector workers nationwide, and a proponent of transparent policymaking concerning public employment and compensation, and lastly a proponent of genuinely harmonious relations between management and staff in the public sector. Unions don't further these goals, because achieving those goals defeats the perceived need for unions to exist. They don't support effective government regulation of labor because they want the regulation to appear to only occur through their contracts, making them seem more valuable. They don't want fair and effective compensation policies for public employees because then those policies would drive compensation standards, whereas they want to be the exclusive mechanism through which public sector compensation is discussed, so for actual fairness to be built into public employment through policy would effectively neuter them. They also don't want genuinely harmonious relations between management and staff in the public sector, because only an agitated workforce sees value in a union, thus unions typically deploy rhetoric intended to keep the sense of anger, agitation, frustration and injustice as high as possible.

You don't have to agree with me on unions, I'm not offended by your opposition to me, and I'm not holding out all hope to convince you, this one person on an internet forum that chose to engage with me for a bit. But the conversation needs to remain front and center in all our minds because unions are an enormously dominant force in our society because of their ongoing control over public sector employment and the Democratic Party.

GOP lawmakers introduce bill to require union recertification

Pontificator