Whose interests does the NLRB represent?

H

Horn6721

Hook'em
First the fiasco with the NLRB trying to deny work to South Carolina workers ( remember not ONE person lost work in Seattle) now they are trying to take away a worker's right to a secret vote.
Editorial from the AZ Republic
"By suing Arizona for passing a law that has yet to be enforced in any way, the National Labor Relations Board is showing whose interests matter most in Washington, D.C., these days.

It isn't the interests of Arizona workers that matter with this extraordinary lawsuit. And it certainly is not the best interests of employers, which the NLRB is using as cover to justify its lawsuit.

Rather, the NLRB lawsuit over Arizona's Proposition 113 is a vestige of the administration's close ties to Big Labor, which remains committed to the dream of radically reforming federal labor law in its favor . . . and, conversely, crushing any impediments erected by the various states that stand in the way of that mission.

The agency announced last week it is suing Arizona over a new state labor law that merely underscores the state's commitment to a worker's right to a secure, secret vote on whether to organize in the workplace. Another lawsuit, to be filed against a similar state law in South Dakota, is imminent. Lawsuits against South Carolina and Utah are in the hopper.

The secret vote has been a cornerstone of the nation's labor laws since the great reforms of the 1930s.


Read more:The Link

Funny the secret vote seemed to work great for 80 years.
 
Again this Administration will stop at nothing to do the bidding of Big Labor....I can only hope that whoever the GOP candidate is he/she highlights the abuse that BHO rains down on the citizens of this great Country!
mad.gif
 
Exactly

But I would be interested in anyone who would defend NLRB's decision to fight against a secret vote that they and unions had defended for 80years.

No one seem willing to defend the board 'ds fight to force Boeing to not go into South Carolina
 
That's a misrepresentation of what the card check approach is. Traditionally, if a union organizer is able to get 30% of the workforce to say they want to unionize, then the employer can either recognize the union, or ask for an election in 60 days (they ALWAYS demand an election). If at the election, 50% of THE VOTERS vote in favor of the union, the union is certified. This would not change under card check. If more than 30% but less than 50% of the total workforce asks for a union, then an election is held. The "card check" law just says that if more than 50% of ALL EMPLOYEES sign cards asking for the union, the union is certified without the need for the formality of an election. Lets not pretend that this is all about the sanctity of the ballot. What it is about is giving management th chance to strong arm the workers, just like the "labor bosses" the writer of the article pretends to be concerned about.
Management uses the 60 day period to hold "seminars" during work hours (labor cannot do that, of course) on the evils of unionization, and even calls in workers one on one for heart to heart arm twisting sessions. I know, I was called in for one years ago. It was unpleasant, and I promise you, I thought my job was on the line if I don't react the right way. The romanticized "Secret ballot" nonsense is management's fig leaf for plain and simply making it harder to unionize. Labor wants it to be easier to unionize, of course. Unless more than half of the entire workforce signs a union request card, then there will be an election. The only way the card check laws hurt the employees is if you assume that more than fifty percent of the workforce will be coerced by union organizers to ask for a union that they do not want. That is possible, of course, but I don't think the government should be so paternalistic, and try to protect workers from themselves, or assume that they are helpless in resisting the union thugs, or bosses, or whatever may be the current derogatory term of choice. But then you conservatives love big government.
 
Whit
I do not know the answer to this
"The "card check" law just says that if more than 50% of ALL EMPLOYEES sign cards asking for the union?

Are the employees guranteed the right to sign the cards in secret or private?
 
The card situtation does not change. Union organizers go to employees and cajole, convince and, yes, probably pressure employees to sign a card. The employee can hand the card to the organizer, or turn it in himself. Usually, the union organizers gather them all up and turn them in in a group. If the union organizer gets an employee to sign the card, then obviously it is not a secret. That does not change with card check. What changes is that fifty percent of workforce asking for a union negates the need for an additional election. Under the old system, even if 100% of the employees requested union certification, there would have to be an additional election...that is where the "secret ballot" election would occur. Under card check, that secret ballot election still occurs if more than 30% of the workforce , but less than 50% asks to unionize.
To be honest, I think that card check does indeed make it easier to unionize, and I do think that union goons put the squeeze on every bit as much as management does. I've experienced both. I just object to the silly characterization of card check. in the article. Republicans do not object to Card Check because it deprives workers of the right to a secret ballot- they have that if half of them haven't already asked to unionize- but because they want it to be harder to unionize. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Whit- I pretty much agree with you, however I can not see any justification to ignoring a private vote for something as important as unionization.

No secret I am adamantly opposed to most labor unions. However, if a group wants to do it, it is certainly legal in our country. What card check does is allows the union to use their tactics (no argument that management would use tactics of their own) and then potentially certify as a union with no private vote.

Honestly, can anyone make an argument that a decision that is so important that everyone should not have the right to a secret ballot? It is simply preposterous to me. Let both sides (labor and management) make their cases and then let the workes vote. The results will be the results.

Being able to vote privately on matters that affect our lives is a hallmark of our country and its freedoms. I guarantee you that if the cards were turned and management utilized their own version of a card check and went to each employee and had them sign in their presence what they wanted to do, it would be outlawed almost instantly.
 
Whit
thank you for that answer. I did not understand what "Card Check " would have done.
I think having a secret ballot no matter what takes the pressure off signing cards in public.
 
Under the current system, the workers can already be "deprived of a secret ballot" if the employer recognizes the union based upon over 50% consent. Under the current system the employer gets to choose if the workers get their "secret ballot" or not. If a worker wants to vote in a secret ballot only, he does not have to sign a consent card. If 50% of the other workers want a union, and he would have voted "yes", then he gets what he wanted. If he would have voted "no", it would have made no difference because he is in the minority. If fifty % of the workforce will not sign cards, but more than 30% will, then he gets to vote in a meaningful secret ballot election.
I understand your concern about coercion, but I'm not sure how you could have a workable system without some type of "trigger" for an election. If one worker wants a union, do you then have a secret ballot election? If 30% is a reasonable trigger point, how do you know when 30% want an election unless there is a petition system? If more than half say they want a union, what purpose does the election serve, unless you assume that they signed the card without really wanting a union?
I think it is instructive that it is the chamber of commerce/management/Republican party that is suddenly so protective of workers' right to vote in secret. I am skeptical that it has anything to do with workers' rights.
 
Chango?

WTF do you mean?Good Lord can you read?

It is beyond sad when one tries to snark and ends up making a fool of themselves.

From MY OP, 3rd line down
"Editorial from the AZ Republic "

Chango now that you see I knew it was an editiorial BUT an editorial with verifiable facts, do you have an opinion on whether employees should be guaranteed a secret ballot on a vote to unionize?
 
Whit
If I read the AZ prop 113 correctly you would still have the trigger ; "cards" signed indicating some workers want a union. If 30% ( OR MORE) sign yes to wanting a union then a secret ballot vote would be held.

One can assign motive , good or bad for both sides but I would argue a secret ballot, no matter the motive, is a good thing for the worker and the employer.

As the secret ballot is the cornerstone for nearly all of our elections and certainly for elections of critical importance why wouldn't you want a secret ballot for something that fundementally changes your workplace and could cost the worker money?

If the NLRB really represents the interests of the workers why would the board NOT want a secret ballot for the workers.
You aruge hte GOP doesn't care about the worker but I argue the Card Check that the NLRB supports hurts the worker while a secret ballot only helps.
 
I wasn't implying that you didn't know it was an editorial. I was questioning (and still question) why you chose that editorial to lead your discussion of the topic?
 
Chango
Really? You are asking why I chose an ARIZONA paper's editorial regarding the NLRB's going after an ARIZONA law?
Are you really asking that?

chango Stop digging. You are deep enough on this thread.
 
The NLRB claims to represent private sector employees but really it represents organized labor. This is another issue that should not be regulated by the Federal government anyway, it should be a state issue and all states have agencies that deal with the same issues so its duplicative work.
 
That is correct about the 30% trigger, Horn, and that triggert vote is not secret. That was my point. If a worker doesn't want his vote to be known by anyone,he does not have to sign a card. That is unchanged under card check. If he doesn't care, then he can sign the card, or refuse to if he doesn't want a union. If more than 50% sign, the card check law assumes that they would vote the same at a secret ballot election. Opponents, with reasonable bases, do not accept that assumption. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but I think that, as usual, the rhetoric is heated to a point not justified by what is at stake. The sanctity of the ballot is not really in danger here.
 
whit
here is I think the issue."If more than 50% sign, the card check law assumes that they would vote the same at a secret ballot election"
I don't agree with that assumtion. I would bet the union organizers are pretty skillful at pressuring workers to sign cards.

It seems about right, if AT LEAST 30% are willing or have been " encouraged 'by unions to sign a card to bring the union in then a secret ballot would not harm anyone and would protect a workers rights.

Aren't unions all about workers rights?
 
No doubt that both sides are going to pressure the employees to vote their way. With card check, though, those applying the pressure know whether the employee "voted" the right way, and can keep the pressure up until they do. The only reason for card check is so that this scenario can play out and shift the odds dramatically in the union's favor.
 
I guess when you hear "union" you see Jimmy Hoffa and I see Woodie Guthrie. (and guys, please, its a metaphor, please do not launch into a tirade about how Guthrie was a communist/alcoholic/hobo-bum). Illegal discharges and promises of benefits from management increase radically during the 6 week election waiting period. In prior administrations there was little done to enforce laws against such tactics. Perhaps the current administration would see enforcement as a higher priority. Again, I think its a bit paternalistic to protect workers from the boogie man of signing cards they didn't really want to sign, but if we are going to be paternalistic, lets level the playing field.

"If general political elections were run like NLRB elections, only the incumbent
office holder, and not the challenger . . . would be able to talk to voters, in
person, every single day. The challenger, meanwhile, would have to remain
outside the boundaries of the state or district involved and try to meet voters
by flagging them down as they drive past .... [T]he incumbent, but not the
challenger, would have the sole authority and ability to electioneer among the
voters at their place of employment, during the entire time they are working....
[T]he incumbent could pull them off their jobs and make them attend
one-sided electioneering meetings whenever it wanted. The challenger could
never, ever make voters come to a meeting, anywhere or anyplace. And the
incumbent could fire voters who refused to attend mandatory meetings, or if
they tried to leave the meeting, or even if they objected to or questioned what
was being said. "The Link
020807NancySchiffertestimony.pdf

Once again, I wonder why Republicans were not horrified at the lack of a secret ballot during the Bush administration, when the NLRB ruled that employers could de-certify unions based on card check?The Link

and see last entry at: The Link
 
Whit
You posted, "when the NLRB ruled that employers could de-certify unions based on card check"
I read the link and did not see the use of "card check" mentioned as a way to decertify unions


But lt's say Employers used card check to show union members in this case
From your link
In Shaw's Supermarkets Inc., 350 NLRB No. 55 (Aug. 10, 2007), the Board held in a 2-1 panel decision (Battista and Schaumber in majority; Liebman dissenting) that a contract exceeding three years in duration does not bar an employer, armed with proof that the union has lost the support of the majority of the bargaining unit employees, from withdrawing recognition prior to the expiration of the contract"

I see no mention that ' card check" was used to show loss of support.

If there had been coverge of it at that time like thisis now many people would have been against " card check" then as they are now

Sorry but it gets old ,saying something should continue now just because Bush did it back then. If Bush jumped off a clif would you want Obama to jump?
biggrin.gif
 
That link didn't use the term "card check", but that is what it was. I cant't find a free link to the NLRB ruling itself, but here is another link, from a less than unbiases source, but it should suffice for the point you raised.The Link

The motivation of those opposing card check is very much relavant Horn; my point was not a "they do it too" argument at all. Opponents of card check claim to be the protectors of worker's rights, but are really just anti-union. They are pleased to decertify without an election, but want to preserve management. I think that grown ups should be permitted to sign proxy statements in corporate shareholder elections, and union support statements in a union context and have that expression of intent honored.
 
Whit
If I read that link correctly first card check processcertified a union then card check process decertified the union.
I wonder if a secret ballot would have changed either result
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top