- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
House approves pro-union labor bill
(what follows is from me, not the link)
This bill is called The Protecting the Right to Organize Act. It has provisions relating to franchising as well as independent contracting that are in some cases legitimately sketchy business practices and are maybe downright abusive and evasive of labor laws.
But the problem is they come bundled with four provisions that help unions (as an institution), not individual workers as a whole, by subjecting people who might not want to be associated with them to all manners of harassment, intimidation and coercion.
1) Eliminates NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections to unionize. Workers contemplating unionizing won't get to vote whether they want union representation or not. If a union organizer or even another militantly pro-union bargaining unit employee can convince them to sign a card, what would have been their secret ballot election vote has been cast. They can persuade, mislead, misrepresent, subtly intimidate, subtly coerce, and twist workers' arms into signing these cards. The NLRB has allowed this to happen because other pro-union employees are not considered "agents of the union."
If 100% of workers everywhere wanted nothing more than to unionize, this wouldn't be a big deal. But because unionizing is supposed to be based on a democratic process whereby the majority vote determines whether a union should be formed, there should be fair democratic election procedures. To eliminate elections doesn't "protect rights to organize." It infringes on the rights of workers who might not want to. The only way to maintain any semblance of fairness with regard to employees' rights to unionize or not unionize via card-check processes is by:
Otherwise, NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections should be maintained.
2) It forces employers to hand over employees' personal information to unions. This goes hand-in-hand with #1 above. Employees' home address, personal email address, and mobile and home phone numbers must be given to unions. Why? So that they can dispatch organizers and pro-union co-workers on them to convince them to card-check unionize (see #1 above), or if it's public sector employment, to harass them into opting in to union membership and agree to pay dues even when their right not to is Constitutionally protected.
3) Abolishes states' private sector Right To Work laws. Right To Work simply says employers cannot agree to be unions' financial enforcers by agreeing to fire people the union tells them to fire based on non-payment of dues. I would maybe be resigned to be okay with this provision if there were regular recertification elections. But unions have always opposed letting their bargaining union employees hold a recertification election. Most union workers have never had the opportunity to actually vote in favor of or against their union representing them.
4) It subjects neutral third parties, who have never signed any agreement with a union, to strikes and secondary boycotts. These tactics that were prohibited over 70 years ago by the Taft Hartley Act, for good reason. This provision is a philosophy of unmitigated economic civil warfare, sabotage, and unrest. It's not only demented, it will come back to severely harm unions themselves. Why? Because if you're a business owner and you cannot or do not want to tolerate the risk of being subject to secondary boycotts, you will quietly find ways to avoid doing business with other companies that are involved with unions. The business community will put counter-pressure on other businesses to avoid unions, especially the militant ones that are known for exercising their new rights to conduct economic sabotage and secondary boycotts. So what happens over time? Business with unionized employees come under attack from both directions -- from unions who put pressure on their business partners, customers, et al. to not do business with them, and by those other business partners, customers, et al. to pressure the business to get away from this unionism. Simply put, this provision to legalize secondary boycotts and strikes is just absolutely ****ed in the head. It will make us all worse off, including unions themselves. It's a vote in favor of (economic) civil war. Civil war does not make countries better off.
Who here can explain how they can ideologically support provisions #1 through #4 above?
(what follows is from me, not the link)
This bill is called The Protecting the Right to Organize Act. It has provisions relating to franchising as well as independent contracting that are in some cases legitimately sketchy business practices and are maybe downright abusive and evasive of labor laws.
But the problem is they come bundled with four provisions that help unions (as an institution), not individual workers as a whole, by subjecting people who might not want to be associated with them to all manners of harassment, intimidation and coercion.
1) Eliminates NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections to unionize. Workers contemplating unionizing won't get to vote whether they want union representation or not. If a union organizer or even another militantly pro-union bargaining unit employee can convince them to sign a card, what would have been their secret ballot election vote has been cast. They can persuade, mislead, misrepresent, subtly intimidate, subtly coerce, and twist workers' arms into signing these cards. The NLRB has allowed this to happen because other pro-union employees are not considered "agents of the union."
If 100% of workers everywhere wanted nothing more than to unionize, this wouldn't be a big deal. But because unionizing is supposed to be based on a democratic process whereby the majority vote determines whether a union should be formed, there should be fair democratic election procedures. To eliminate elections doesn't "protect rights to organize." It infringes on the rights of workers who might not want to. The only way to maintain any semblance of fairness with regard to employees' rights to unionize or not unionize via card-check processes is by:
a) requiring NLRB-supervised recertification elections every, say, 2-5 years, or
b) eliminating exclusive representation, thereby effectively making it as easy for workers to opt back out of the union as it was for them to opt in via card-check
b) eliminating exclusive representation, thereby effectively making it as easy for workers to opt back out of the union as it was for them to opt in via card-check
Otherwise, NLRB-supervised secret ballot elections should be maintained.
2) It forces employers to hand over employees' personal information to unions. This goes hand-in-hand with #1 above. Employees' home address, personal email address, and mobile and home phone numbers must be given to unions. Why? So that they can dispatch organizers and pro-union co-workers on them to convince them to card-check unionize (see #1 above), or if it's public sector employment, to harass them into opting in to union membership and agree to pay dues even when their right not to is Constitutionally protected.
3) Abolishes states' private sector Right To Work laws. Right To Work simply says employers cannot agree to be unions' financial enforcers by agreeing to fire people the union tells them to fire based on non-payment of dues. I would maybe be resigned to be okay with this provision if there were regular recertification elections. But unions have always opposed letting their bargaining union employees hold a recertification election. Most union workers have never had the opportunity to actually vote in favor of or against their union representing them.
4) It subjects neutral third parties, who have never signed any agreement with a union, to strikes and secondary boycotts. These tactics that were prohibited over 70 years ago by the Taft Hartley Act, for good reason. This provision is a philosophy of unmitigated economic civil warfare, sabotage, and unrest. It's not only demented, it will come back to severely harm unions themselves. Why? Because if you're a business owner and you cannot or do not want to tolerate the risk of being subject to secondary boycotts, you will quietly find ways to avoid doing business with other companies that are involved with unions. The business community will put counter-pressure on other businesses to avoid unions, especially the militant ones that are known for exercising their new rights to conduct economic sabotage and secondary boycotts. So what happens over time? Business with unionized employees come under attack from both directions -- from unions who put pressure on their business partners, customers, et al. to not do business with them, and by those other business partners, customers, et al. to pressure the business to get away from this unionism. Simply put, this provision to legalize secondary boycotts and strikes is just absolutely ****ed in the head. It will make us all worse off, including unions themselves. It's a vote in favor of (economic) civil war. Civil war does not make countries better off.
Who here can explain how they can ideologically support provisions #1 through #4 above?
