Is this union-busting?

[Robb]

Pardon my ignorance. :)

Our local, recently de-regulated power company went to NLRB last month, petitioning that a handful of their lead line technicians were "supervisors" because they helped in hiring and firing. NLRB said yep, they were.

This month they hold a vote to de-unionize, and the union rules seem to say supervisors don't get to vote.

It's an issue, because it appears the vote (which passed, decertifying the union) was very tight, and the "supervisors" voting would've made the difference. :shrug:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

Yep, that's union-busting

Remember back when the new OT rules went into effect, classifiying "team leaders" as management and ineligible for OT?

This is probably an outgrowth of that.

Bastards.

[f-bush]

1. Sure was union busting

and typical of the bullshit that shub's administration not allows to happen, but encourages!

[Greyhound]

2. Just one of many dirty tricks they use. Thank Dog all those yuppie

bastards saved us from the spectre of unionism in the 80's. :sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

11. As I recall

It was just as much working stiffs who believed unions were too greedy; causing good companies to move offshore, or to the south. Don't dump this all on yuppie management.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Only Idiots believe RW talking points like that.

[sandnsea]

20. That's what happened

Call them idiots all you want, they believed this shit in the 80's and still believe it today.

[Greyhound]

22. They sure did, bought it right down the line, cause we were all gonna

get rich selling junk bonds to each other.

[sandnsea]

35. We??

Obviously we moved in different circles. The people I knew were all wondering what kind of good economy junk the government was selling.

[Greyhound]

47. I meant "we" in the collective sense, as in "we amerikans". n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. MILLIONS of WORKERS would jump at the chance to join a union.

[sandnsea]

38. And millions wouldn't

Convincing them they're wrong is the current challenge.

[readmoreoften]

49. You know, as someone who's risking my future fighting for a union

you're comments pretty much make me sick. Why do I come to DU to listen to right wing tripe? There are MILLIONS of Americans who want the benefits of being in a union. The NLRB robbed me of that. Before unionization, my job paid $10,000 a year with no benefits. Now I make $19,000 a year plus benefits and I have a secure grievance procedure against my boss. UNIONS MAKE WORKPLACES LIVEABLE. If 50% or more of workers in a workplace want to bargain collectively, to strip them of that right is against FEDERAL LAW. It is union busting. Comments like "unions have gotten too greedy" are not only right-wing talking points, they're just plain ignorant tripe from people who like to post on topics they have no experience with. Saying "unions are too greedy" is like saying "workplaces are too lenient" or "colleges are too liberal" or "restaurants don't serve fattening food anymore." Gross oversimplifications.

There's a word for people who don't think workers should have the right to bargain collectively: republicans.

[sandnsea]

51. Just ignore reality???

You completely miss the point of my posts. The first one was because of the idiotic statement that "yuppie bastards" caused the union busting in the 70's and 80's. Sorry, but NO, that was not the key problem. The key problem was exactly what I described, people who couldn't find jobs AT ALL watching others strike for what seemed like a gravy train of high wages and benefits. Minimum wage, $3.00; union wage, $15-20. Yeah, union wages THEN were often higher than the median wage TODAY. This is also the exact same reason these same people vote Republican, they think a median wage is better than welfare and that is the EXACT choice many people had in the 70's and 80's. That is the economic reality YOU are up against when you fight for unions and you ought to know that. I can't quite figure out how pointing out the thinking of people who supported the union busting makes ME anti-union. You won't find anybody more pro-union than me, but I'm also not going to live in a fantasyland that blames the "yuppie bastards" for all the woes of the world when the real hurdle is that anti-union worker who joins because he has to but doesn't see the benefit at all. That guy might well be standing right next to you and you would be wise to pay attention.

[readmoreoften]

52. Sorry then. I must have misunderstood your post.

My apologies. I agree then totally. The problem is not just the management, but the union-busting tactics that the management employs that makes workers suspicious of the very people who are going to get them a better way of life. Not to mention the rhetoric that "unions are greedy" and "the mafia controls the unions." Most union jobs don't have hyper-inflated wages. People in non-union jobs will always be angry that they make next to nothing and they are fools for believing that it is the union who is keeping their wages down. It is their boss. To a certain degree, it IS the management's fault because the powers that be exploit the fear and the self-interest of their workers. Desperation and short-sightedness go hand and hand. Standing up for yourself and your co-workers is difficult. To blame all this on unionization is ridiculous, though. The fact that union workers have a living wage and jobs that aren't unionized have lower wages is not the fault of unions. It's not a zero sum game, at least not in my industry. My union contract only strengthens the rights of other workers in my field.

And I know anti-union rhetoric very well. I'm under siege every day of my life from co-workers who enjoyed the pay raise of being represented by a union, but want other co-workers to fight their battle on the picket line.

[Greyhound]

48. I wish this were true, unfortunately I found the opposite.

At least in southern California, where I was organizing the hotel and restaurant workers. They all seemed to be under the impression that they would be fired with impunity (they were) and that the NLRB wouldn't do a thing to help them (they didn't). This was under the Clinton admin, I can only guess that it is far worse now.

[Blue_Tires]

27. i met this high-schooler a couple of months ago

was one of the biggest rush-listening, anti-union, GOP wise-ass, big-business worshipping-types you'd ever see at that age (car bumper covered with RW slogans)....He was suffering from depression--Why? because his father, who was UAW and worked in the auto industry all his life for a parts supplier, was in serious danger of being let loose, and someone of his father's age would have a hard time catching on somewhere else, and they would probably have to move....

Of course, the teen just KNEW somehow that the root of the problem was the inflexibility of the UAW, and not with the poor, innocent bigwigs at GM....All I could do was shake my head.

[sandnsea]

34. 80's redux

If I heard it once, I heard it 100 times.

[asthmaticeog]

3. Yes, it's union busting.

Reclassifying non-management employees as managers on the thinnest of criteria is one of the first things a company facing an organizing drive will do to try to keep the number of pro-union votes down. Happened when I was in a union drive - a BUNCH of pro-union employees suddenly found that they were managers, much to their surprise.

[Robb]

6. So managers aren't part of the union?

I'm woefully uninformed, here.

[asthmaticeog]

9. Nope. Management is excluded from workers' unions.

It's management that's on the other side of the table from union reps during contract negotiations, so it wouldn't do to have managers in the unions.

[Robb]

10. Thanks. Proving

...there are, in fact, stupid questions. :hi:

[asthmaticeog]

25. Well, y'know, you can take the dingbat out of the Lounge...

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

40. These folks are not management.

Lots of employers have line leaders, area directors, etc.

[HereSince1628]

4. Yes, and this has been the game for a while.

College professors and nurses have both be pushed as management staff, because they make decisions. Go figure.

[lpbk2713]

5. The LU might have screwed up

by not cancelling their membership before the vote. But it would have been hard to predict how the vote would have turned out any way.

[Twist_U_Up]

7. yeppers

They will try to add as many supervisors or anyone else for that matter,that they think will help flip the vote.

[Armstead]

8. Why did the union lose otherwise?

Why did enough employees vote to decertify in the first place?

Did they hyave legitimate gripes against the union? Or were they intimidated to vote againbst it?

That would also be a question to ask regarding union-busting there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Sounds Legitimate To Me. And If It Was Only A Handful, And The Vote Was

successful, than it seems enough people no longer wanted the union anyway. Those that voted know the situation best so if that's what most of em wanted than more power to em :)

[Robb]

13. Well, yes and no

We're talking a quite small number of employees, and about five newly-recognized supervisors that could no longer vote. Exactly the amount by which the vote swung.

Were the "new" supervisors pro-union? I guess that's the question.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. If They Lost By Five Votes, Than Even If All Five Of Them Were Pro-Union

then it still would've broken even. If that many wanted to break from the union and they had enough votes on their side than more power to them. Is there any information from the employees point of view that declares in any way that this was a bad thing? If they don't really think it was and a majority thought it was a good thing than is there really anything to discuss or anything wrong with it?

[two gun sid]

41. Did These "supervisors" pay union dues?

If the company initiated the NLRB action it sounds like a unfair labor practice to me. If I was a member of this Union I would demand a NLRB action was filed to protect the integrity of the bargaining unit. If a job has always been a Union position in past practice it stays a Union position until the company bargains in good faith to change that practice.

I would really like to see a copy of the contract. I would be willing to fight the company and the NLRB over this.

[LincolnMcGrath]

17. It is Union Busting

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. As I said, From what I've read so far it seems just fine.

Seems like enough employees wanted it that way too. What's the big deal? Do you have any information that shows bad intentions or bad conditions or anything negative on the part of the company? Or is it possible the employees actually wanted it this way and since they have that right more power to them?

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. The NLRB ruling is all the info one needs.

And if you think the company played fair and square on this I have some oceanfront property right here in Iowa for you. :eyes: :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Since You Are Working Straight Off Of Assumption Without Anything Factual

whatsoever, I can't lend your argument any credence.

If you want to provide anything worthy I ask for any of the following:

1. Anything showing they weren't in fact supervisors.

2. Anything lending credibility to the notion that the 5 or a majority of the 5 would've voted pro-union.

3. That the employees overall were more happy in the union and were coerced somehow to go against their best interests.


If you can't provide anything lending credibility to any of the notions above, than I fear you have no leg to stand on in this argument.

:hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. Are we really having this discussion on DU in 06?

The ruling itself said they were LINE TECHS! A *stacked NLRB board made this pro-corporate decision.

As for coercion, look to Walmart or any of the other 15000 complaints filed last year about union busting.

I personally have a hard time leading credence to a pro corporate argument here on DU, even if the poster tends to lean rightward.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Not Sure Which Poster Leans Rightward, But Regardless, Are You Going To

try and provide any background or facts to provide integrity to the 3 points I previously posted? Or is the waffling around above with no direct relation to the issue all you're going to provide.

Just curious if there is any more to your argument other than just "cause I said so and that should be good enough reason".

Thanks! :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

31. No.Not If you refuse to accept anything posted.

I can not stop you from supporting the company line here, it's a free country. Since you haven't provided what you are demanding, I might add.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Nothing Has Been Posted In Response To My 3 Questions. I Implore You To

try, as that would actually give you any credence to your position other than "this is bad because it's always bad and when unions dissolve it is always bad no matter what no matter the circumstances no matter the company cause I only see things in black and white even if I have no information to relay to defend my argument".

I think you are better than this, and hope you prove me right by actually supplying anything factual in direct relation to my 3 questions I raised in my earlier post. If you can't provide them than there is really no need to continue fighting about an incident you have no information on, as that may turn out to be just plain foolish.

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. Why not address the OP?

I answered your questions. I have as much info as you do.

"this is bad because it's always bad and when unions dissolve it is always bad no matter what no matter the circumstances no matter the company cause I only see things in black and white even if I have no information to relay to defend my argument". :rofl: I'm SERIES!!!1

Keep shopping at walmart, until it is your job on the line.

Company goes to NLRB claiming LINE TECHS are supervisors, month later, decert vote. Enough said.


1. Anything showing they weren't in fact supervisors.
From the OP “Our local, recently de-regulated power company went to NLRB last month, petitioning that a handful of their lead line technicians were "supervisors" because they helped in hiring and firing. NLRB said yep, they were.”


2. Anything lending credibility to the notion that the 5 or a majority of the 5 would've voted pro-union.
From the OP “It's an issue, because it appears the vote (which passed, decertifying the union) was very tight, and the "supervisors" voting would've made the difference.”


3. That the employees overall were more happy in the union and were coerced somehow to go against their best interests.
From the game called Life “Reality, plus tens of thousands of NLRB complaints of union busting filed, LAST YEAR ALONE. Toss in a few hundred complaints against walmart as well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. All That Effort And Yet No Further Substance.

Wish I hadn't wasted my time reading it. You posted nothing new or substantial and it is beginning to look like you simply can't within this argument. Why aren't I responding to the OP? Cause I already did. He asked a legitimate question, and hasn't responded further to my inquiries. You have, albeit without merit, so I am responding to you. Secondly, your point number 1 reply offers nothing in rebuttal. If they participated in hiring and firing it would seem they could be considered supervisors. The NLRB rulings aren't automatically wrong. Not sure just saying "I just knowwww they are wrong" is a legitimate argument here. Thirdly, your reply to point number 2 is even more unworthy of legitimacy. I'm quite sure the OP would've been more accurate using the word could've instead of would've. I'm sure he doesn't know how all 5 would've voted so using the word would've is probably inaccurate. The OP can correct me there if I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Lastly, your reply to my final point has not an iota of relevance to the question itself. The question has absolutely nothing to do with walmart or the NLRB. It had to do with the employees of the company itself. I see you offered nothing about them at all or anything to show reason why they are in fact NOT happy with the way things turned out.

Look, this argument is done. I've given far too many chances to you already to provide anything legitimate and you can't, so I'm done wasting my time expecting your next reply will contain something of value.

Take Care! :hi:

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. I'm crushed!

[benburch]

44. Which side are you on?

Come all you good workers,
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell.

CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

My dady was a miner,
And I'm a miner's son,
And I'll stick with the union
'Til every battle's won.
They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J. H. Blair.

Oh workers can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses,
Don't listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize.

<[ Yes, I am questioning your loyalties. >]

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. With All Due Respect Ben (And You Do Have My Respect), I Am On The Side Of

fact, logic and reality. I never automatically default to one side of an issue without having any facts merely because it is an issue I am supposed to support. I absolutely support workers rights and support and understand the need for unions. I do not believe, however, that every union in every company for every reason is always right each time every time. It is not a black and white have to side with the union 100% of the time issue for me. Like with every event in life, I look at every single instance within its own boundaries and judge it on its own merits for its own reasons. That's how I judge anything, with an open mind and objectivity and base my deductions on as much fact and reasoning as possible.

In this case, I haven't seen anything that states the employees are treated badly, didn't want to break the union, or will be unhappier now that it has been. Due to that, I cannot just automatically say "how dare they!" or automatically declare it was a horrible thing, when there is nothing yet provided to convince me as such. I also am not bound by loyalty to anything ever, which is mandatory if one is to achieve 100% objectivity.

This is just how I view any issue across any plane of any topic. I understand your view and I've read many of your posts that cause me to respect you greatly. It seems, however, that we may not see eye to eye on this.

[benburch]

46. Yeah, we shall have to disagree about this.

Every workplace I have ever seen go non-union suffered major benefits and pay cuts within two years.

[louis c]

15. Here's my take on it....

I'm a Business Manager.

I've faced this problem of 'supervisory' personnel in the union.

I received advice from my Harvard educated labor lawyer.

Here goes.

The 'supervisor' should be designated as a foreman. He or she would continue to be union. he or she could report an incident to management, but not be involved in the actual discipline.

An example: The foreman of the crew tells a laborer to dig a hole. The laborer doesn't follow the instructions. the foreman is free to tell his superior (non-union management)of the unsatisfactory work. However, the foreman CAN NOT recommend the discipline, that has to be done by non-union personnel.

The foreman can be required to testify at a grievance hearing and must tell the truth. I hate these incidents, because it pits one union person against another. However, that's the job of the foreman.

Your union should have done the same thing. Keep them in the union and designate them as foremen.

[LincolnMcGrath]

18. As a business manager you must know unions do not designate anyone.

This could be an eyeopener and union folks need to listen the hell up. Union - Management committees across the country often allow all kinds of hourly workers to screen new employees and also let them sit on peer review groups.

[louis c]

21. This would be spelled out

in the CBA.
The designation would be contractual, as would the job duties. Certainly the union couldn't do anything unilaterally.

Hiring is solely the right of management in our CBA. However, we do have foreman who work as labor supervisors. How else could a foreman do his job, if not to report the workers who fail to do their jobs?

Again, they do not discipline and these "reports" are rare. I have found that as uncomfortable as a grievance hearing may be I certainly have more influence over a fellow member than I would over a management person.

Let me give you another example. Money has to be counted. We have union folks count other union members receipts. The union and management confer on these positions. When a fellow member is "short" money, the counter turns in the slip saying so. The discipline is decided by management, yet the problem is reported by a union member.

[Ksec]

28. Yes it was.

The Democrats need to put workers rights back on the forefront of issues they tackle. This countries working people are just starved for the attention of a party who will stick up for them. Weve always been the party of the little guy but it seems to have fallen off the importance agenda. It need to be front and center again. Center stage. Bring back the Populism and we can win again. Keep allowing the repukes to define who we are and we'll continue to lose.

If anyone asks me what the Dems stand for , I always say the little guy, the working class. Lets bring this back up to where it should be. The most important issue for Democrats.

[Maddy McCall]

39. Not only was it union busting, but those new "supervisors" just lost their

overtime pay, according to the recently enacted republican bill that cut overtime pay for salaried employees--they'll be able to get time and a half, but not overtime pay now.

If I remember the law correctly...

[cmd]

42. Were those newly named "supervisors" salaried or hourly workers?

If they were in hourly and union members, they would have been covered by the union contract. It was union busting and it is a new tactic under the new guidelines for overtime work. The Bush administration cannot drive fast enough in getting us to a third world status.

[benburch]

43. Yes, absolutely this is unionbusting.

You need a labor lawyer ASAP.

[readmoreoften]

50. If management makes a move to destroy a union,

then you can bet it's union-busting.

I wonder if they used other tactics, too. Spreading panic and disinformation. Managers coaching workers. I deal with it every day on my job.

[bperci108]

53. My two cents...

But first, an answer to your question: Yes, it is. :grr:

If it looks like you will lose the election and lose the union, then it's time for Plan B.

Get a hold of the IWW in Cincinnati and organize your fellow workers anyway. www.iww.org

2,5,10, whatever you can get; it's a start.



IOW, to hell with the NLRB and their stacked deck and their collaborators.


You and your fellow workers stand together as one, regardless of what the "rules" have to say about it.