Daily Kos: Card Check is More Democratic than NLRB Elections

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/105645/73/682/660378

by NathanNewman
Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:58:28 AM PST

So some folks will say, hey labor law sounds good, but don't the business lobbies have a point that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) proposed by labor and its supporters will undermine democracy by eliminating the secret ballot. I'll have a post soon about how the secret ballot will be fine and more used in workplaces if EFCA passes, but let's take the basic corporate argument headon. Under EFCA, instead of holding an election with a secret ballot, workers can also choose a union alternatively by a majority of workers signing cards asking to have their union recognized.

Horrors, the business lobby cries, weeping for the lost democratic voice of their workers (as they threaten to fire anyone who supports the union during the election), but here's the thing-- an NLRB election recognizes the union if a majority of THOSE VOTING support the union, while the card check option requires support from a majority of ALL WORKERS IN THAT COMPANY OR VOTING UNIT. So the latter option is harder and actually is more guaranteed to reflect the will of the workers. Follow below the fold to imagine how this would play out in a federal Presidential election.

* NathanNewman's diary :: ::
*

Think of it this way, according to numbers at CNN.com, Obama won a solid victory with 66,495,305 votes across the country. But that was out of 213,005,467 total eligible voters, so Obama received only 31.2% of those who could vote.

Let's say their was a "card check" option for the Presidency. First, instead of having the government set up polling places in every community and manage an election, just to get those original 66 million plus votes, the Obama campaign would have had to independently pay to send cards to each voter and do far more extensive "get out the vote" work to get those cards returned. No depending on voters just to show up at the polls in safe states and districts. Every voter would require individual outreach.

So just duplicating the exact numbers Obama got would be more daunting under a card check Presidential system. But getting those same numbers would still leave the campaign short. On top of the 66 million plus votes he received, Obama would need an additional 40,007,429 legal voters (213,005,467 divided by 2 minus Obama's election total) signing cards supporting him for President. Which means Obama would have to reach deep into the mass of non-voters-- whether apathetic, disenchanted, dispirited Republicans, or whatever -- to get those last 40 million supporters. The resources required for that outreach would be a level truly daunting, and even the Obama machine is grateful that the government provides the easier route of elections. But I think unquestionably, a President who could demonstrate support from an absolute majority of all eligible voters, having 106,502,734 voters state their support for them, would have a clear democratic mandate.

FULL story at link.

[dmallind]

1. The problem is not in the numbers but in the method.

If people really want a union they will vote. If they really don't want one they will vote. If they don't care either way, then by definition they are OK with either outcome from the voting of those who do care.

Politics DOES work the same way too, and that's fine also. If people don't care who is president (who the heck ARE these people?) then presumably their vote is not necessary to them and not relevant to us, but if they do vote it will be by secret ballot (or sort of secret in some cases, but in my current state of NY it really is - people sign in and go push the lever not necessrily in order - you are given no ballot with a number of any kind).

I have nevre liked the idea of card checks . It is too easy to manipulate or outright coerce. Anybody can talk a company (or union) line in public meetings then go vote their conscience the other way. That ability is taken away when the big burly guys corner you in the bar and shove a card under your fist.

There really is no convincing argument that a committed small d democrat can make against a secret ballot. In politics. In union elections. In any area where differences of opinion may cause strife.

[Omaha Steve]

2. The employees can still have a secret vote

They only have to check VOTE on the card. It is that simple. Lets look at how it worked when I organized for the GAU back in 1980. I had 75% of the group that signed cards in the work place. Legal on breaks, before or after work. None of it at bars etc... After I was fired (within 48 hours of the company learning I had enough yes votes), only three people in the plant would even talk to me. They were scared. Today the company has merged into one of the largest in the country. No union. Under current law once cards are turned in for a secret ballot, it takes months to actually have the election. In the meantime the company bombards the employees with anti-union specialists. They get the hell scared out of them while the union has no way near equal time. My case was three and one half years in court. I won. Today a case waits 10-14 years. The system is broke. Take a second look at the issue. Consider that card check helps those that want a union from being fired like what happened to me.

[dmallind]

4. Clarify for me if you would

Does a card checked with "vote" count in the majority needed to get union representation? The problem is with a card sign campaign being the ONLY factor that decides representation or not. I would have no problem with a card check simply OK'ing a union secret ballot election, but I have a problem with it being a substitute FOR a union secret ballot election, which is what I understand the goal of union lobbyists to be.

It's certainly possible I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that the unions want to simply collect signatures on cards instead of having an election. No matter how many times I look at the issue I won't like that. Nor would I like it the other way round - if companies could reject union representation that way.

Obviously no comment I could make on your personal case would be appropriate or valid, so I'm sticking to the general issue here.

[Omaha Steve]

5. No

It is a separate tally. Either way they must have 50% plus 1. So a plant with 100 eligible workers needs either 51 that mark vote or simple representation. Check the info in my sig file.

[dmallind]

6. Sorry I'm being thick today. More help?

So let's say 51 people in your plant sign the card the way that the union organizer asks them to.

Will there then be a secret ballot or will the union be installed as representing them to the company?

[Omaha Steve]

7. I'll try

If 51 or more people mark for a secret election, they will have a secret ballot election. IF 51 or more just check for representation, they would now be covered by and protected by a union.

[anigbrowl]

11. I'm supportive, but I have a question here

As an organizer, isn't your job to encourage people to check for 'representation' - if they choose vote, wouldn't you be inclined to repeat stories as above of how companies can try to influence the voting process in abusive ways? I'm strongly in favor of union eligibility - ie that people should be able to join a union if they want - but I personally am not a big joiner and don't like being campaigned to. In some jobs I've felt that having a union there would be a Good Thing, in others I've felt the place was well run and decently managed and would have had no interest.

So me, I think there should always be a secret ballot. I don't want to be encouraged to choose 'represenation' and if I were asked to do so (being neutral otherwise) it would actually put me off voting for the union. I'm a bit cynical about unions, not because I'm a hyper-capitalist or anything, but because they have their own failings and politics.

For example, someone in my household is a care worker for a relative, and in recent months has been bombarded with literature from both the SEIU and the UHW, who have been fighting a turf war. Looking at the mailers they send out, mostly they just demonize each other without having much to say about the merits of their case. The UHW says the SEIU is trying to seize control of a California union and run it from far away, plus they're bad because their union officials had their last conference in Puerto Rico or someplace and enjoyed the sunshine instead of going somewhere gloomy but presumably cheaper. The SEIU says the UHW are a bunch of lying liars who are no good at getting benefits for their members. Or maybe it's the other way around.

There's no employers involved in this; it's just two unions duking it out, and the quality of debate is extremely low (as in non-existent). Additionally, while this issue was going on they both sent out huge #s of mailers - about 20 in total I think. Presumably all these mailers go to all their members, so the printing and postage must have cost hundreds of thousands, if not over a million. Not exactly a good use of members' union dues if you ask me.

[Omaha Steve]

13. It seems that the act will be amended or changed before it passes

So I can't make a true statement on what will be in the final form. It did pass the House. It stalled in the Senate when they didn't have the 60 needed to end cloture. W would have vetoed it anyway. The best thing to do is follow the bill as it changes, and give your representative your opinion. You can bet I'll keep DUers up on events as they happen.

OS

The four versions of the bill at this time: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.800:

Download a summary of the bill (PDF) : http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/EFCA_Summary.pdf

[dmallind]

12. OK I get it now. Appreciate the patience.

The idea that they can mark for an election is indeed new info to me (and perfectly appropriate and fine in my eyes to do so), but the part I did know and wanted to verify - that the cards can be marked in such a way to obviate the requirement for a secret ballot (and that of course the organizers will prefer this, since it then becomes a fait accompli and saves them time and effort) - is the part I still can't support. It's not an anti-union stance either. I would not support the ability of employers to reject the possibility of a secret ballot in this manner either, and for exactly the same reasons.

[Touchdown]

15. A touch screen breaks, and a tech comes over to help you vote.

He now knows you want Obama, but it keeps registering McSame. Secret ballot anymore?;)

[Touchdown]

16. "Big burly guys corner you..." Stereotype much?

I see that those company produced orientation videos didn't bore you.:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Neither Way Is Perfect And Both Can Be Corrupted.

I'm still in the camp at this time that the secret ballot method currently incorporated is the better way to go.

[Adsos Letter]

8. I share dmallind's concerns....

I understand how management can persecute workers trying to organize for unions; I have seen it at first hand myself.

How does doing away with a secret ballot alleviate this?

[Adsos Letter]

9. I just saw the answers you most recently posted...

It still seems like there could be coercion from organizers, and fellow workers, to opt for representation... I don't see how this does anything other than transfer the coercive potential into the hands of the union.

It would make more sense to me if one were able to demand a secret ballot, as you suggested.

How would management target individuals under that scenario, other than, as you suggested, to target employees as a body?

I am seriously trying to understand this... my full support for unions is balanced by my support for freedom of choice.

[Omaha Steve]

10. Lets start with an explanation a friend of mine wrote

I would say that after 70 years or so of NLRB elections, the process has proven itself to be unreformable. There are several problems.


First, the process itself it subject to political manipulation since the commissioners are Presidential appointees. If the Prez doesn’t like unions, then you are screwed. Okay, you could argue, change that. So the question is who picks? Save that for a minute.


Second, an NLRB process is complicated, time-consuming, and assumes that two adversaries are on equal footing when they are not. The process favors those with the most resources, as any drawn-out legalistic process does. It is impossible to reform that out of any legalistic system.


Third, the NLRB process should fundamentally be about allowing workers to express their preference (or lack thereof) to join a union. That’s why it was created. Card check, for all its flaws, is a much better way to guarantee that workers can express their desires for (or against) a union without threat of being fired or fear of having their jobs relocated.


That brings me back to the first problem with the NLRB. Who decides who the ultimate decision-makers are? If the NLRB process is supposed to be about allowing workers to make a decision for or against a union free from threats and coercion, it seems to me that they are the ones who should be in ultimate control of whether or not they join a union, not a political appointee. And if you take away the political appointee, then who gets to be in charge?


And that’s brings me to the final problem with the NLRB. It is fundamentally a process that begs the employer to recognize the union through a legal process. A union’s existence should be because it has members, not because an employer has recognized it. Card check allows for the creation of unions at the behest of members, not employers. This is especially important in right-to-work states where you have to engage in constant member contact, leadership development, and action in order to ensure membership stability without the crutch of closed shops.


Card check is superior to a reformed NLRB in so many ways that it makes more strategic sense to win EFCA in addition to the NLRB process, rather than trying to reform a fundamentally flawed system.


Or something like that.


Nathan Henderson-James


Then consider the fear many people have of union membership in general. A friend of mine since grade school has encountered some problems and asked me for help. She is covered by a union contract. We are a right to work state. She is not a member. She has been scared by management since her first day of work to join. NOW she has a problem with her employer granting family leave. The employer has over 50 workers, so it comes under the FMLA. She is having trouble with them accepting her application. She knows I'm shop steward. Thats why she came to me for help. I do know several members in her local. I've done what I can. She will get help. But it would have given her more time with her mom with a lot less stress if she had been a member to begin with. Fear of losing a job is a big anti-union motivator, even in a union shop. If she is afraid to join in a union shop, how much more is a person that works in a non union shop to join?

Omaha Steve

http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/index.cfm


Get the facts on why

* Unions Raise Wages—Especially for Minorities and Women
* Union Pay Is Higher in Nearly All Occupational Groups
* Unions Workers Have Better Health Care and Pensions
* Workers’ Incomes Are Lower in States Where Workers Don’t Have Union Rights
* Unions Are Good for Business, Productivity, and the Economy
* Unions Help Bring Low-Wage Workers Out of Poverty
* Unions Help Bring Workers Into the Middle Class

Learn more about

* Unions and Professional Workers
* Union Membership by State
* Union Membership by Industry
* Trends in Union Membership

More

* Download a one-page flier of the “Union Advantage by the Numbers.”
* How much difference does a union make? Download a quiz and find out!
* Unions 101, a one-page “crash course” on unions.

[Adsos Letter]

14. I do not disagree at all with the many benefits protected...

and rights won by the struggle of unions in the reform movements of our history, Steve, and I would like a way to enforce those protections, including the right of workers to engage in collective actions, across the whole spectrum of labor in this country.

It is the degredation of the element of free choice that comes with an abandonement of the secret ballot that concerns me...

I must sound like a management hack; I assure you, I am not. I just have a strong desire to protect the hard fought gains that ushered in the secret ballot for any elections in this nation... it is one of the things that distinguishes us fronm totalitarian regimes.

Having said that, this nation has also been defined by a exploitative system emphasizing "radical individualism" that places profit over concerns of the community; in this case, the community of workers whose toil and sweat makes that profit possible.

I admit to being stuck in a real dilemma on this...possibly even a trilemma...

Can you see any pragmatic way to enforce measures against coercion by management in order to preserve the sanctity of the secret ballot?

[ConsAreLiars]

17. Apart from all the details, the bare-bones of it is rather simple.

One side, the corporations, like things as they are. the other side, the workers, have had their ability to organize on their own behalf eroded for decades. The unions believe, as do the corporations, that this card check procedure would make organizing workers into unions significantly easier. Unionized workers get to keep more of the value their labor produces than do non-unionized workers, thus the conflict over card check.

It is that simple - just ask yourself which side you are on.

[Omaha Steve]

18. I can't say any law would be fair to the workers

The laws passed in the 30's to give them a PROTECTED right to organize don't work. Once I was fired in June of 1980, the company (Industrial Label) was free to do anything and everything it wanted. Most of it illegal. Like asking the employees IF they signed a card. As long as the company writes the paycheck, they control through fear. To me the the proposed legislation with the secret ballot vote option is the most fair proposal I've heard.

OS

This new ad starts running this weekend on cable nationwide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-MYQ38u1rU&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/boniors_group_goes_up_with_ad.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/boniors_group_goes_up_with_ad.php