• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Curtains for union coercion (Employee Rights Act)

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,821
Reaction score
3,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The problem:

Illinois worker recounts ordeal to decertify union

An Illinois woman recounted the three-year ordeal she faced to have her workplace's union decertified in testimony Wednesday before the House Education and the Workforce Committee. She ultimately got a decertification vote, but the National Labor Relations Board, the main labor law enforcement agency, prohibited the votes from being counted.

"They concluded that we did not deserve the decertification election because, although the union had a year to bargain and had even scheduled a contract ratification before I filed the petition that got us the election, they still had not had enough time to bargain. The ballots were destroyed, and we will never know the results," Karen Cox told the committee.

NLRB rules workers must pay year's worth of dues to decertified union

If you are a worker trying to sever your relationship with a union, you have to make extra certain you didn't make even the tiniest error when you do it. That's what the National Labor Relations Board said Tuesday when it ruled that nine workers who decertified their union in 2012 still had to pay it another year's worth of membership dues because they sent in some of the paperwork too early.

The solution:

Curtains for union coercion - Washington Times

In 1947 organized labor spent today’s equivalent of $11 million opposing the Slave Labor Act. The act is better known today as Taft-Hartley. Despite the union’s rant, it was designed to provide protection against abusive and often violent labor unions. Now on the 70th anniversary of that law, Congress is again poised to realign employment relationships free from coercive union pressures.

Last week, the House of Representatives held their first public hearing on the Employee Rights Act (ERA). Contrary to the union imagery of slavery, today we have polling. And the ORC polls over the last three years consistently show that employees are rejecting union intimidation. The ERA has multiple provisions which independently pivot around 80 percent approval with Democrats and union households.

Under current law it is not a majority of those affected who will determine if a union is established but a simple majority of those voting. The ERA returns the voting standard to an earlier labor law that required true majorities.

The unions admonish that if it took an absolute majority for a member of Congress to be elected, then no one would gain office. But that is why the Constitution requires only a simple majority. We have to fill those seats for government to work. In a reading of the Constitution, though, there is no mention of the AFL-CIO. With only 7 percent of the nongovernment workforce in a union, it’s apparent these groups are not required for our country to function.
 
Trade Unions are always tricky. I used to pay 1% from my salary for a membership. I thought that I can defend myself from any illegal actions against me, but as a result the TU didn't do anything when I got fired
 
Back
Top Bottom