More payback for unions

[finknottle]

Many others are “persuaded” to vote against the union through a long, captive audience campaign of employer threats and harassment...[/b][/i]"

 

That's a nice spin. By law, employers can only make their place in the workplace and on company time - that means you are getting paid to sit through it.

 

By law, the unions are given your home address and number, and can contact you repeatedly at any time outside of the workplace and work hours. And they sure as heck are not going to pay you.

[pBills]

Once again, you provide evidence that refutes the point you try to make (if there ever is one).

 

Secret elections will be held only if 30% of employees sign the petition. How in the world is that a secret ballot? Do you consider for a split second that to reach that 30%, the employee's identity and voting preference is not so secret anymore?

 

IT IS NOT A SECRET BALLOT

 

 

 

Most unions if not all unions will not present cards requesting for an election until 50% or signed. This bill will give the employees the CHOICE to forgo a secret ballot election.

 

If at ANY TIME ANY employee... one who signed a card or one who didn't CAN request a secret ballot election. Which means the NLRB will come in and manage the election. No reason needed.

[pBills]

That's a nice spin. By law, employers can only make their place in the workplace and on company time - that means you are getting paid to sit through it.

 

By law, the unions are given your home address and number, and can contact you repeatedly at any time outside of the workplace and work hours. And they sure as heck are not going to pay you.

 

 

It's spin that employer intimidation happens? I would say it's a fact. How many drives have you been on?

[pBills]

That's a lot of rats in NYC alone. Wouldn't you imagine money'd be better spent on members' benefits instead of marketing?

 

 

Your right. Why try to grow the union?

[finknottle]

If at ANY TIME ANY employee... one who signed a card or one who didn't CAN request a secret ballot election. Which means the NLRB will come in and manage the election. No reason needed.

 

So it is not up to the NLRB, any request triggers it. Got a link?

[finknottle]

It's spin that employer intimidation happens? I would say it's a fact. How many drives have you been on?

 

No, calling it a 'long, captive audience campaign' without mentioning that it is on work time and you are getting paid during it, while neglecting to mention that the unions can engage in a long, captive audience campaign simply by pestering you at your house during your free time - *that* is a spin.

[pBills]

So it is not up to the NLRB, any request triggers it. Got a link?

 

Just look at the link I posted earlier.

[pBills]

No, calling it a 'long, captive audience campaign' without mentioning that it is on work time and you are getting paid during it, while neglecting to mention that the unions can engage in a long, captive audience campaign simply by pestering you at your house during your free time - *that* is a spin.

 

Only talk to those who have requested information about the union at home. Some people may do something else, but that has been frowned upon on the campaigns I have been on.

 

Ever hear of paid organizers?

[KD in CA]

That's a lot of rats in NYC alone. Wouldn't you imagine money'd be better spent on members' benefits instead of marketing?

 

 

I always appreciate seeing them. It's nice of the union to let me know which businesses to patronize.

[finknottle]

Just look at the link I posted earlier.

 

You didn't post one, unless you are referring to the Rachel Maddow youtube piece, which has all the objectivity of Rush Limbaugh.

 

Or are you refering to the unattributed excerpt (presumably from a partisan CEPR press release) which contradicts what you say? It claims they need 30% - not one - just to petition for a secret ballot. And petition means just that - a request. If it is to be automatically granted, they would say 'file' instead.

[GG]

Most unions if not all unions will not present cards requesting for an election until 50% or signed. This bill will give the employees the CHOICE to forgo a secret ballot election.

 

If at ANY TIME ANY employee... one who signed a card or one who didn't CAN request a secret ballot election. Which means the NLRB will come in and manage the election. No reason needed.

 

Try again bucko. Below is the text of the current law. Show me where is states that an employee can request a secret ballot.

 

The idiot Miller amendment will strike Section 9 (e), which mandates that the Board hold secret elections if 30% of the employees want to have elections.

 

 

REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS

Sec. 9

 

(e) [secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3)], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.

 

[section 158(a)(3)]

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;

[finknottle]

Only talk to those who have requested information about the union at home. Some people may do something else, but that has been frowned upon on the campaigns I have been on.

 

Ever hear of paid organizers?

 

So employers are to be governed by laws with penalties, but it is enough that some unions frown upon malfeasance. Perhaps we should loosen the rules for employers and let them self-regulate their behavior too?

 

Tell you what - why don't you try to start a rival union and tell us how it goes.

[pBills]

You didn't post one, unless you are referring to the Rachel Maddow youtube piece, which has all the objectivity of Rush Limbaugh.

 

Or are you refering to the unattributed excerpt (presumably from a partisan CEPR press release) which contradicts what you say? It claims they need 30% - not one - just to petition for a secret ballot. And petition means just that - a request. If it is to be automatically granted, they would say 'file' instead.

 

 

Maddow. She gives you the cliff note of the bill. In the car or I. Would send you more links.

[pBills]

So employers are to be governed by laws with penalties, but it is enough that some unions frown upon malfeasance. Perhaps we should loosen the rules for employers and let them self-regulate their behavior too?

 

Tell you what - why don't you try to start a rival union and tell us how it goes.

 

Unions are very much governed too.

[Wacka]

No goons?

I went to the Recall Grey Davis Rally in Sacramento several years ago. Across the street were a bunch of union guys (had shirts on) that were protesting against the recall. One of them pushed a PREGNANT woman with kids that was leaving the rally.

They weren't there on their own- they were paid by the union. They left at 12 PM on the dot.

 

Tony Soprano lives.

[bills_fan]

Go Hoosiers!!! I love this guy, watch this video. Just perfect!

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/indiana-pen...-torture-2009-5

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Teamsters do that. I am not a Teamster. Way to label all union people as the same though. Good job.

 

 

Actually, no. The United Carpenter's Union put one up outside the local Weis Supermarket a few years back.

[pBills]

Actually, no. The United Carpenter's Union put one up outside the local Weis Supermarket a few years back.

 

 

read further. I also said that Teamsters have in the past lent it out. They are the ones who primarily use it.

[pBills]

No goons?

I went to the Recall Grey Davis Rally in Sacramento several years ago. Across the street were a bunch of union guys (had shirts on) that were protesting against the recall. One of them pushed a PREGNANT woman with kids that was leaving the rally.

They weren't there on their own- they were paid by the union. They left at 12 PM on the dot.

 

Tony Soprano lives.

 

 

 

Not saying that there aren't a-holes out there. But classifying all union people as mobbed up or as goons is just dumb. That just like saying all CEOs and people within management are people who would run over their own family for extra cash.

[pBills]

Try again bucko. Below is the text of the current law. Show me where is states that an employee can request a secret ballot.

 

The idiot Miller amendment will strike Section 9 (e), which mandates that the Board hold secret elections if 30% of the employees want to have elections.

 

 

REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS

Sec. 9

 

(e) [secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3)], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.

 

[section 158(a)(3)]

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;

 

 

 

My bad...

 

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections?

 

No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.

 

“Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.