My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots – WSJ.com — Obama is for this piece of crap legislation. As someone who actually was involved in the unionization process I can assure you that this is a terrible idea. (Was Obama actually ever in a Union?) McGovern saw it as so onerous he had to write an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. This sort of thing — open voting — is only done to intimidate people. Cow them. This sort of thing, as the Democrats suppose, allows the Unions to see who is really on their side can just as easily be used by employers as a form of intimidation. The Republicans, like dopes, all voted against it only because the Democrats voted for it. This Congress really sucks it.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as “card-check.” There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
What the Republicans Fear. But this could as easily be employers.
Bravo, John.
Holy shnikes…..I agree with McGovern.
I have to say the law would work, but only if there is a provision that if more than 50% sign a card to get rid of the union, the union would be dropped. This makes it easy to get and hard to get rid of.
This all sounds noble. In actuality, it is a piece of crap. Employer intimidation is too rampant to ever allow a free vote. You can’t hold one side to playing fair while the other side can get away with unfair tactics.
I would have no problem with a secret vote if the Labor Board would actually enforce the law and fine companies engaged in unfair practices.
Pointless… Unions have had their time and place. In the modern world they are just a road block to the progress. Majority of unionized industries are dying or struggling,… Guess why…
When would they be functional? If there was no place for corruption (ex. all Union officials actually working with members and not paid for their Union services) and if Union concerns reached further than “two seconds ahead” (when was the last time Automotive workers threatened a strike because of the bad product they were given to make?).
Go on strike and get out sourced even if you _win_.
Reminds me of that California initiative (that failed thank God) that would have required a union to get 100% of the member’s approval for any political contribution.
I would have supported it if they had also demanded that 100% of stockholders must approve any political contribution by a corporation.
Unions currently have to go through a card check process in order to have an NLRB election. This story is very misleading. The legislation is not changing but removing a step in the process.
I dunno. Sounds like much ado about very little. Is removing the requirement supposed to force people to join the union (from fear of retribution from the union) or not join the union (from fear of retribution from the company bulls)?
This seems pretty much like a zero-sum game.
While I’m all in favor of the secret ballot, there seems to be a lot more involved in this bill, much of which would benefit the worker.
I guess if George McGovern thinks it sucks, there must be problems with it, but I don’t see it as something as malignant as, for example, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, or torturing of POWs.
I have been forced to pay a union all my life in order to keep my job. How anyone can agree to this law is beyond me. Nobody can intimidate you in a secret ballot. Not the company or union. My stewerd is a very nice guy. But he also is 6’6″ and 300lb. and looks like a pro wrestler that lost a few. If he asked you to sign a card most people would not tell him no.
John is it too much for you to conceive that a Republican might actually do something smart? Is it possible that they voted against this because it was a bad bill? No, that can’t be possible. After all Republican = Dope.
#10, Eddie,
Now reverse the image and picture the Foreman being 6’6″, weighing 300 lbs, totally incompetent, and tells you the union is a worthless piece of crap.
Anyone who wants to scrap a secret ballot wants to intimidate s/o. If you can vote in secret NEITHER side knows how you voted and NEITHER side can engage in personal retribution over your vote.
It doesn’t matter if it is voting for an elected official or a union issue.
Jeez, even I agree with McGovern. Scary.
I think people are misunderstanding the EFCA. It looks different on paper then it plays out in the real world. Why do you think the Teamsters are the ones that are supporting the EFCA? I work for unions in the midwest and I can say from personal experience that every employer does everything in their power to stop a union from forming and the EFCA will be a big step forward for unions. Do you guys realize that Walmart alone spends over $150-million a year paying off politicians to stop unions from forming. Unionization is Walmarts biggest fear and they have politicians working on both sides to make sure their stores don’t get unions. They hold meetings at their stores for the workers, educating them about how bad unions are for them.
I can’t find a single argument in favor of taking away workers right to a secret ballot on unionization.
Sure Wal Mart is bad et cetera, but it’s not an argument for removing secret ballots, quite the contrary.
This proposal, I think, will be seen as nonsensical and deeply unfair by the great majority of workers.