Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

Daktoria · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
Why would workers A, B, and C have the right to negotiation a contract on behalf of workers D and E who are not interested in the union and want to negotiate their own contract? What makes workers A, B, and C think that they are somehow in control of what workers D and E do? And where is the government in all this? Why doesn't the government protect workers D and E?

Centinel, that's the exact point. The government doesn't want to protect D and E. It also wants the union to be able to act as quickly as possible such that it doesn't have to educate all of its members. That way, inner organizational strife is kept down to a minimum, and people have to "just trust" senior officers in charge.

Instead, the government wants the union to be as corrupt as possible so it can charge as much as it wants in contracts for wages.

That way, the government can justify levying higher taxes, and continue to crowd out private enterprise.

Centinel · Dec 19, 2011

Daktoria said:
Centinel, that's the exact point. The government doesn't want to protect D and E. It also wants the union to be able to act as quickly as possible such that it doesn't have to educate all of its members. That way, inner organizational strife is kept down to a minimum, and people have to "just trust" senior officers in charge.

Instead, the government wants the union to be as corrupt as possible so it can charge as much as it wants in contracts for wages.

That way, the government can justify levying higher taxes, and continue to crowd out private enterprise.

Well that pretty much sucks. The most basic function of government is to protect our life, liberty and property. And here it is allowing workers A, B, and C to force their will on workers D and E. I call bullsh*t, and whatever law allows this trampling of the liberty of D and E should be changed or repealed. Workers have rights that need should be protected, and I go on record as opposing this anti-worker legislation.

Daktoria · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
Well that pretty much sucks. The most basic function of government is to protect our life, liberty and property. And here it is allowing workers A, B, and C to force their will on workers D and E. I call bullsh*t, and whatever law allows this trampling of the liberty of D and E should be changed or repealed. Workers have rights that need should be protected, and I go on record as opposing this anti-worker legislation.

That's really just secondary. Chances are workers D and E will go along with it anyway. They're lumpenproletariat looking for whatever job they can get their hands on. Even with regards to the future, D and E don't have much of a shot at learning what it takes to become an officer or how officer culture is cultivated.

Besides, there's the argument that they can join a temp agency and find their own jobs.

The real issue has to do with the overall culture of society this encourages. Not only will it lead economically to higher wage demands and taxes, but it will lead to information entropy in general which is worse than any economic tension imaginable. By reducing the necessity of organizational cohesion required to take action, organizations can create layers of secrecy where only insiders know what's really going on.

It's not just abusing worker rights, but it's destroying real citizen equity in general. The situation of insider information creates a world of second class citizens who can't defend themselves because they don't have social networks or subjective familiarity with legal terms of art.

Renae · Dec 19, 2011

misterman said:
Bull****.

The elections are run by the government, not the union. It is a long process that takes weeks, and involves sending in a card at the convenience of the voter. Don't spew bull**** about things you don't know anything about.

I'm not spewing bull****.

STEP 4: Make Your Union “Official”
Once you’re able to show strong majority support for creating a union, usually through the signing of “authorization” cards or a petition, the next step is to make your union official. There are different ways to do this depending on your type of workplace. One common way is to request the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is a neutral government agency, to hold a secret ballot election. Depending on the state, public employees may have their own state agency conduct an election. Another way to gain official union recognition is to have your employer voluntarily recognize your union. OPEIU organizing staff can help you decide which method might be best for your situation.

At this point, you may be asking, “What will my employer say to workers forming a union?” The typical employer will say you don’t need a union because he/she will not want to give up any control or power. You and your co-workers need to be prepared for what to expect when your employer learns about your steps to form a union.

Steps to Creating a Union Workplace

See, you don't even know what the **** you're talking about.

1Perry · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
Why would workers A, B, and C have the right to negotiation a contract on behalf of workers D and E who are not interested in the union and want to negotiate their own contract? What makes workers A, B, and C think that they are somehow in control of what workers D and E do? And where is the government in all this? Why doesn't the government protect workers D and E?

Hehe, agree to pay A,B,C $18 and hour after they have been on strike for 6 months and then agree to pay D and E $23 an hour.

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Daktoria said:
Pragmatism = cultural imperialism. Don't throw that shtick around.

The courts are ****ing retarded. They're just trying to be practical in order to make things happen despite how people clearly haven't invested the time needed to think about what they want to happen.

There is something very wrong going on with this country and freedom of speech. People are increasingly claiming it's their right to control other people just because they can make a lot of noise, and other people can't.

I don't understand what you're talking about.

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

MrVicchio said:
I'm not spewing bull****.

Steps to Creating a Union Workplace

See, you don't even know what the **** you're talking about.

What part of "One common way is to request the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is a neutral government agency, to hold a secret ballot election," from your own link, did you not understand, genius?

That's what this thread is about. Not elections for union officers.

The NLRB election usually takes place over several weeks, with campaigning from both sides. The workers usually vote by mail or by dropping their ballot. They don't have to vote in person.

And you're still full of ****, since unions don't go holding secret elections in the middle of the night either. That's not legal.

Go spew your bull**** somewhere else. You can have legitimate complaints about unions, but not lies.

nodak · Dec 19, 2011

The only alternative is to assume they meant to vote "yes". I think the ruling is proper.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
Why would workers A, B, and C have the right to negotiation a contract on behalf of workers D and E who are not interested in the union and want to negotiate their own contract?

Well, workers D and E don't get to negotiate their own contracts in most cases. Most non-union workers don't have contracts.

What makes workers A, B, and C think that they are somehow in control of what workers D and E do? And where is the government in all this? Why doesn't the government protect workers D and E?

I doubt most workers D and E oppose unions winning them higher wages, etc. and most couldn't do better on their own. But sure, maybe some do. That's something for a whole new thread. It's the entire history of the labor movement you're getting into there. Too much for me to handle.

Centinel · Dec 19, 2011

1Perry said:
Hehe, agree to pay A,B,C $18 and hour after they have been on strike for 6 months and then agree to pay D and E $23 an hour.

I just don't see the problem with A, B, and C forming their union and engaging in negotiations with their employer, while worker D and worker E can each negotiate their own contracts. The fact that the decisions of workers A, B, and C have any impact at all upon two other people who want nothing to do with them or their contract is just astounding to me. How do A, B, and C get away with this. The more I learn about this subject, it seems that the government is actually supporting the ability of A, B, and C to impose their will on people other than themselves. The government ought to prevent this, not go so far as to empower this sort of behavior.

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Daktoria said:
A "no vote" is what's recorded when people don't vote. It's the default position, and it waits for something to be said in order to be changed.

This is VITAL to any form of parliamentary procedure.

Name a single parliament, organization, governing body, commission etc. that counts the absence of a vote as a "no" vote. That's utter bull****.

Without respect for "no votes", entire organizations can be subverted by the hands of the few.

Same goes for yes votes. Why is "no" the status quo?

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
I just don't see the problem with A, B, and C forming their union and engaging in negotiations with their employer, while worker D and worker E can each negotiate their own contracts.

You don't get it.

Bus drivers or whatever don't negotiate their own contracts. They take whatever their employer offers. If they asked for a contract, the employer would laugh at them.

Centinel · Dec 19, 2011

misterman said:
Well, workers D and E don't get to negotiate their own contracts in most cases. Most non-union workers don't have contracts.

You're right in that there may not be a written contract, but all employees and employers agree to the terms and conditions of employment. It may be formal or informal.

I doubt most workers D and E oppose unions winning them higher wages, etc. and most couldn't do better on their own. But sure, maybe some do. That's something for a whole new thread. It's the entire history of the labor movement you're getting into there. Too much for me to handle.

Point taken. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own. I'll drop it here if you think I'm derailing...

Centinel · Dec 19, 2011

misterman said:
You don't get it.

Bus drivers or whatever don't negotiate their own contracts. They take whatever their employer offers. If they asked for a contract, the employer would laugh at them.

Our posts passed in the ether. As I mentioned above, it might not be a formal written contract, but simply an employment agreement. Employers and employees always negotiate and agree to employment terms.

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
You're right in that there may not be a written contract, but all employees and employers agree to the terms and conditions of employment. It may be formal or informal.

You've got my meaning backwards, I think. Non-union employees (D and E) have no collective bargaining. They get what their employee offers them. They can ask for more, but they make their own deals. For most, that means no deals, just taking what is offered. There is no enforcement either - the employer can change the terms at any time, or fire them just because they feel like it, etc.

Point taken. Maybe it deserves a thread of its own. I'll drop it here if you think I'm derailing...

Drop it only because I can't handle it right now!

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Centinel said:
Our posts passed in the ether. As I mentioned above, it might not be a formal written contract, but simply an employment agreement. Employers and employees always negotiate and agree to employment terms.

Well, no, they don't. The typical bus driver doesn't negotiate anything, he asks how much the employer pays and says yes or no. That's the extent of it. Professional and white collar jobs may negotiate, but not most union-level workers. Which is why they have unions, to give them bargaining power.

Centinel · Dec 19, 2011

misterman said:
Well, no, they don't. The typical bus driver doesn't negotiate anything, he asks how much the employer pays and says yes or no. That's the extent of it. Professional and white collar jobs may negotiate, but not most union-level workers. Which is why they have unions, to give them bargaining power.

Okay. I'll take back my initial assertion and simply say that employers and employees agree to the employment terms. As you state, there may or may not be much negotiation.

And now I'm dropping the subject...

misterman · Dec 19, 2011

Found the NLRB election procedures summarized on Wikipedia.

NLRB election procedures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's have no more bull**** about "middle of the night" elections.

Daktoria · Dec 20, 2011

misterman said:
Name a single parliament, organization, governing body, commission etc. that counts the absence of a vote as a "no" vote. That's utter bull****.

Congress. You should try watching C-SPAN sometime.

There's:

Yes
No
Abstain
No Vote

Same goes for yes votes. Why is "no" the status quo?

Silence is not consent. It's not your right to expect others to do what you want because you're no more of a person than other people.

misterman · Dec 20, 2011

Daktoria said:
Congress. You should try watching C-SPAN sometime.

There's:

Yes
No
Abstain
No Vote

Exactly. But not voting doesn't count as a no vote. It counts as not voting.

Silence is not consent.

Nor is it non-consent. It is silence.

I understand your point. A vote is a vote to change the status quo, so the status quo is the default and a non vote is de facto a no vote. But that doesn't apply to elections in which you choose whether to be a voter, as opposed to an elected body where there are a certain number of votes to be cast. That's the difference. In an open election, where anyone qualified can vote and there are a large number of voters and no quorum required, a non-voter doesn't count either way.

Daktoria · Dec 20, 2011

You're confusing abstention with "no vote". This has NOTHING to do with status quo issues, especially when it comes to multi-choice elections.

This is VITAL when it comes to the quorum issue. You can't assume that people consent with present-only quorums unless you intend on disrespecting who other people are in not letting them exercise their own judgment.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling at this point. This is the last chance. Your statement about silence not being non-consent actually questions whether or not you're a possible rapist. Frankly, if I was a moderator, I'd have you banned just for making that statement.

misterman · Dec 20, 2011

Daktoria said:
You're confusing abstention with "no vote".

False. There is no difference in this situation.

Let me try to explain this to you again.

A "no vote" means not voting (not the same as "no"). It doesn't count. Nor does an abstention. So a bill could pass even if it doesn't have a majority of members of the chamber voting yes.

For instance, a vote in the Senate of 45 Yes, 44 No, and 11 not voting or voting "Present" (an abstention in the Senate) would PASS. The 11 non-votes don't count either way.

So you are wrong. Members who don't vote don't count either way.

And I've done alot more than watch C-SPAN.

This is VITAL when it comes to the quorum issue. You can't assume that people consent with present-only quorums unless you intend on disrespecting who other people are in not letting them exercise their own judgment.

False. Those who don't bother to vote don't get counted. That's their choice. Their judgement is to not vote at all. You can't count it as a vote for one side or the other. THAT would be disrespecting their judgment - counting their vote in a way they didn't cast it.

That's how it works in every legislature and every election in America. A quorum, if required (and it is only required in legislatures or agencies or similar bodies, never in a mass election) is established in a SEPARATE vote. So you'd do a quorum call, then if a quorum is present, you could do business and vote. The votes of those who are absent or abstaining still don't count when you vote on a measure. Except for perhaps some rare, important votes like amendments to a constitution or whatever, no legislature or election requires a majority of all members or voters - only a majority of those present and voting.

Honestly, I think you're just trolling at this point. This is the last chance. Your statement about silence not being non-consent actually questions whether or not you're a possible rapist. Frankly, if I was a moderator, I'd have you banned just for making that statement.

Please don't be silly.

Daktoria · Dec 20, 2011

QUORUM COMES FIRST. YOU CAN'T ASSUME PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED WITH VOTING CONDITIONS.

The quorum issue has ALREADY been addressed in Congress, so we don't have to consider it any longer, but you can't assume it in new organizations.

Otherwise, ANYONE could conspire with anyone else to force them into an organization. THIS is what makes you look like a potential rapist. You'd be willing to conspire with others into coercing third parties to have sex with you.

misterman · Dec 20, 2011

Daktoria said:
QUORUM COMES FIRST. YOU CAN'T ASSUME PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED WITH VOTING CONDITIONS.

Nope. There is no election in America (as opposed to a vote in a legislature or agency) that requires a quorum. In most elections, only half or fewer eligible voters actually vote, in fact.

The quorum issue has ALREADY been addressed in Congress, so we don't have to consider it any longer, but you can't assume it in new organizations.

Is that your way of saying you were wrong?

Otherwise, ANYONE could conspire with anyone else to force them into an organization.

Nope, not when everyone has the right to vote no, if they choose to.

If you choose not to participate in an election, your vote doesn't count. Very simple principle. You are still responsible for that decision and its consequences.

But look at what you said - if anyone could conspire to force someone into an organization, that would apply even if everyone voted! If the vote were 60% yes, there would still be 40% who voted no, and would have to go along with the rest. Is that a "conspiracy" to "force" someone to do something? No, it's just democracy.

THIS is what makes you look like a potential rapist. You'd be willing to conspire with others into coercing third parties to have sex with you.

You realize this could be grounds to report YOU to the mods, right? Please stop this nonsense, it makes you look really silly.

Daktoria · Dec 20, 2011

We're done here. I'm convinced you're a rapist, and there's no reason to talk with you any longer.

Court: Rule change for transportation union elections is valid

New member