Unions

[tazinib1]

so unions are supposedly formed to assist with work place conditions and wages. and if you dont join them, you are blackballed. wow, unions sound so nice!

 

I tell you what, I don't think I have worn a shirt with more pride than the one I had to wear for 3 days as part of my initiation into the union. And yes I had union brothers stop by my place un-announced to make sure I had it on.

 

Working in my business non-union is like walking on steel beams on a skyscraper with no harness. It pays but there is absolutely no safety net. Non-union shows are low pay, extremely long hours and more than likely under-fed. I had my 2 front teeth knocked out by a light 1 1/2 years ago on a non-union tv show and had to pay out of pocket --- no insurance. I'm extremely proud of being in my union as it is considered a "You've made it" stamp among the other obvious things. Before this, I had 0 insurance of any kind. Notta. Now I have full dental,medical and a retirement plan. The Hollywood unions are EXTREMELY strong and I don't ever see them dying out.

[Caveman_Nick]

Funny...I am not for or against unions. I am against illegal activities perpetrated by unions, and I am against illegal activities perpetrated against unions. People should be free to peaceably form unions and negotiate. They shouldn't be allowed to monopolize labor channels and keep companies from making progress.

 

I like civil liberties.

 

 

You'll have to elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying.

 

 

Not sure what illegal activities you are talking about.

 

Simple. I am not "for" or "against" Unions as a rule. I am against some of the things unions do, in particular the things they do to force membership and the things they do to people that choose not to be a part of a union. I am against things they do to companies that choose not to hire union workers.

 

Those things typically come down to scare tactics, violence, and vandalism.

 

I do not mean this as an indictment of unions in general. I mean that it happens sometimes with some unions and/or with some union members. And I am against that conduct.

 

I am also against companies/entities whose conduct/actions are illegal in how they treat unions/union workers, whether those actions include discrimination or contract violation, or some other instance. I think companies need to deal in good faith with unions, and often times will get better work when dealing with a union.

 

In the end, I think Unions are fine as long as they are on the up and up, and that companies should treat them that way. I think businesses that use unionized workers and businesses that choose not to can both be successful. If a business chooses to deal with a union, hopefully the union will have a mind towards the success of that business. If a business chooses not to, I would hope that whatever union wants the work would conduct themselves in an understanding fashion.

 

I think an example of where the unionization was a detriment to a business is with General Motors. A significant combination of poor management and overzealous demands by the autoworkers union has put that business in a position where it can't do much more than fail. I don't blame the union entirely, and I don't blame the company entirely. I do blame the bad choices they made together that causes so much money to have to come off of the top of every GM car to deal with pensions and other union benefits, which has essentially kept the company from being competitive. Honestly, I have not read up on it recently so I do not know the current status, but it's not that far back into the past when I was reading about this. Maybe a year to 18 months ago...and it's been building for a long time.

 

Then, I can say that around her in MA, you almost always want to deal with someone from the plumbers union. You are much less likely to get a hack knocking on your door than you are if you just grab a guy out of the phonebook. That's my experience, anyways.

 

That's really all I was saying

[Clubfoothead]

The research I've done leads me to believe that to unionize and to be able to negotiate issues as a representative of other employees, a union has to prove a "substantial" number of employees want to unionize. It appears one of the methods companies battle unionization is to dispute the validity of secret ballots. If that is the case, the EFCA provides people with a way of proving to the NLRB that they really do wish to unionize.

 

Nick, I definitely understand why you wouldn't necessarily want an open election on whether or not to unionize. I just don't see where the union itself would even have access to the names given such an election appears as if it would be governed by the National Labor Relations Board anyways. FWIW, I haven't seen where the Employee Free Choice Act mandates that ballots to unionize aren't secret, but it gives unions the ability for the NLRB to conduct a non-secret election when the validity of a union to act on behalf of employees is challenged, either by other employees or the employer.

 

Finally, I believe the EFCA is replacing or amending the National Labor Relations Act, which, of course, was passed in 1935 apparently in response to employer abuses during the tough depression years.

 

What James Sherk and Paul Kersey fail to understand is that the EFCA is simply the addition of a few paragraphs to the NLRA. It doesn't do away with secret ballots, it provides a mechanism to resolve issues surrounding a disputed secret ballot. I think they are being dishonest.

 

Sorry to hear about yer nephew Skippy. My best to your family.

[Caveman_Nick]

Nick, I definitely understand why you wouldn't necessarily want an open election on whether or not to unionize. I just don't see where the union itself would even have access to the names given such an election appears as if it would be governed by the National Labor Relations Board anyways. FWIW, I haven't seen where the Employee Free Choice Act mandates that ballots to unionize aren't secret, but it gives unions the ability for the NLRB to conduct a non-secret election when the validity of a union to act on behalf of employees is challenged, either by other employees or the employer.

 

I am definitely against the forcing of open ballots. I have not read that legislation or even a summation of it, so I make no claim to know if it does just that. There are many folks claiming that it kills the secret ballot, though, and that would be wrong.

[Clubfoothead]

There are many folks claiming that it kills the secret ballot, though, and that would be wrong.

 

I agree that people are saying that. I agree that would be wrong. I disagree that what they say is accurate.

 

NLRA: http://www.union-organizing.com/nlra.html

 

EFCA as passed by the house (best I could find quickly): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110dM8NBQ::

[Caveman_Nick]

I agree that people are saying that. I agree that would be wrong. I disagree that what they say is accurate.

 

NLRA: http://www.union-organizing.com/nlra.html

 

EFCA as passed by the house (best I could find quickly): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110dM8NBQ::

 

I believe they are referring specifically to:

 

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection

 

Which would suggest that unionizing by secret ballot would be right out the window, as "The Board" would need to certify this desire by signature verification, and thereby open up to scrutiny who did or did not sign off on the unionization.

 

I can't say that I know what the ramifications would be in actuality, but that does seem to be what the outcry is about.

[Clubfoothead]

I believe they are referring specifically to:

 

 

 

Which would suggest that unionizing by secret ballot would be right out the window, as "The Board" would need to certify this desire by signature verification, and thereby open up to scrutiny who did or did not sign off on the unionization.

 

I can't say that I know what the ramifications would be in actuality, but that does seem to be what the outcry is about.

 

But that requires you to do the same thing as Sherk and Kersey, which is to both ignore the 1st half of that very paragraph:

 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition.

 

So of course, when you do that, you are also ignoring Sections 9c,1 through 5 of the NLRA as well. That's the exact reason why I give Sherk and Kersey the

Edited February 19, 2009 by Clubfoothead

[Caveman_Nick]

But that requires you to do the same thing as Sherk and Kersey, which is to both ignore the 1st half of that very paragraph:

 

 

 

So of course, when you do that, you are also ignoring Sections 9c,1 through 5 of the NLRA as well. That's the exact reason why I give Sherk and Kersey the

 

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. I am not ignoring that part of the paragraph, I am just following the situation through as opposed to separating it out into pre-vote and post vote.

 

Put it this way: A group has a secret ballot union vote. It passes 55-45. Fine, they are now ready for the board, but who voted for or against the union is still shielded from public view.

 

When the board comes in, the people that voted 1) still probably all feel the same way they did before and 2) still have all the same risks of having their vote knows as when the vote was taken.

 

Everyone in the group isn't required to sign, only enough to certify that the vote passed. It would seem to me that this eliminates the secret ballot aspect.

 

And really...I am just painting a picture with a potential circumstance I see. In practice that picture could be something completely different. But I think the above is a viable POV at this time.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Caveman_Nick

[Clubfoothead]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it. I am not ignoring that part of the paragraph, I am just following the situation through as opposed to separating it out into pre-vote and post vote.

 

Put it this way: A group has a secret ballot union vote. It passes 55-45. Fine, they are now ready for the board, but who voted for or against the union is still shielded from public view.

 

When the board comes in, the people that voted 1) still probably all feel the same way they did before and 2) still have all the same risks of having their vote knows as when the vote was taken.

 

Everyone in the group isn't required to sign, only enough to certify that the vote passed. It would seem to me that this eliminates the secret ballot aspect.

 

And really...I am just painting a picture with a potential circumstance I see. In practice that picture could be something completely different. But I think the above is a viable POV at this time.

 

But that only comes into play if someone is disputing the union's authority to act anyways, which the employer is currently free to do. Plus the way I read it, the union petitions to be the union based upon the results of a secret ballot if the results are disputed to the Board, they can go in and conduct their own new election. I could be reading it wrong but I read the whole amendment to simply be an additional mechanism for dispute resolution when a union's authority to act is challenged to the NLRB.

 

Most importantly, I have acknowledged concerns about unions somehow mis-using the EFCA process but what I haven't heard you do is acknowledge the shortcoming of the current system, which would allow for a company to simply dispute a union's authority to act when there is no codified method of resolving that issue under the NLRA.

 

Seems like there's a lot more concern about the potential for abuse by the union under the EFCA while ignoring the potential for employer abuse under the NLRA.

[Skippy]

In the end, I think Unions are fine as long as they are on the up and up, and that companies should treat them that way. I think businesses that use unionized workers and businesses that choose not to can both be successful. If a business chooses to deal with a union, hopefully the union will have a mind toward the success of that business. If a business chooses not to, I would hope that whatever union wants the work would conduct themselves in an understanding fashion. This is the way it is around Pittsburgh in the trade unions for sure. We pride ourselves on giving a strong hand to making the company a better place. We love to see the company we work for succeed. My company has a strong partnership with the labor unions and we sit on different committees side by side with the company. Our ideas flow and are often implemented in a partnership sort of way. Before a big project is signed off on, all the trade foreman are in a construction meeting checking the specs for the company. It is certainly a wise way for them to do business as they basically have some great consultants in house.

 

Then, I can say that around her in MA, you almost always want to deal with someone from the plumbers union. You are much less likely to get a hack knocking on your door than you are if you just grab a guy out of the phonebook. That's my experience, anyways. RR and I talked about this a while ago. It seems to me that you hit the nail right on the head. I would like to go more into this but I just don't have the time today.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Update: this article from today's Hotel-Online:

 

Study Shows Organized Labor's Effort to Pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)

and its Card Check Proposal Comes with a Terrible Cost to Jobs and the Economy

.

 

Increased Unemployment and Stifled Job Growth Will Claim Millions More in Decades to Come

WASHINGTON, March 5, 2009 - Empirical data shows that organized Labor's effort to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) comes with a terrible cost to jobs and the economy, according to a detailed study released today by noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar.

 

According to the study, An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications, every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration will result in a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate the following year.

 

Dr. Layne-Farrar concludes "The costs [of EFCA] should be carefully weighed against any purported benefits of passing the Act, all of which appears to benefit some groups at the expense of others. There is no coherent theoretical argument that explains how the higher costs, greater legal uncertainty, and expanded government intervention entailed in EFCA would improve overall social welfare."

 

The report finds conclusively that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs under EFCA in year one would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year. Job losses directly attributed to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be equal to the entire population of Boston, MA.

 

Recent comments made by organized labor reinforce the economic peril associated with the report's findings.

 

"Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, predicts that ECFA would cause unions to 'grow by 1.5 million members a year, not just for five years but for 10 to 15 straight years.'" (Labor Goes for the Brass Ring, The American Spectator, September 16, 2008)

 

"Stewart Acuff, special assistant to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, said the 428,000 new members last year is just a small portion of what unions could recruit if the card-check bill passes." (Union membership rises for second straight year, Associated Press," January 28, 2009)

 

"EFCA would help achieve organized labor's goal of increasing dues-paying members at the cost to the U.S. Economy and, ironically, jobs," said Philip A. Miscimarra of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and counsel to the Alliance to Save Main Street Jobs. "This research shows EFCA would promote a surge in job losses and stifled job creation. These are terrible problems at any time, but devastating in today's economic environment."

 

The consequences of EFCA passage would affect the entire economy and would overwhelm any anticipated wage and benefit increases among the subset of workers that gain union status. The empirical results presented in the paper therefore recommend against passing EFCA.

 

The study complements a recent report authored by renowned legal scholar Richard A. Epstein titled the Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act. Professor Epstein's report summarized the economic impact of EFCA by suggesting that "The bottom line therefore is that the passage of EFCA will create huge dislocations in established ways of doing business that will in turn lead to large losses in productivity."