LA Times now lying about EFCA.

[ColbertWatcher]

From the Los Angeles Times
Editorial
The flaw in 'card check'
The Employee Free Choice Act contains worthy reforms, but it needs to preserve the secret ballot.
March 29, 2009

One part of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 ought to be a no-brainer: adding teeth to today's penalties against employers who improperly intimidate workers or engage in other unfair labor practices. If anything, that portion of the bill ought to be enhanced.

A second part, calling for an arbitrator to impose a two-year initial contract when negotiations and mediation fail, has drawn strong protest from business, which currently can drag out contract talks forever and thus negate employees' decision to organize. Filibustering against a properly elected union is an abuse of the collective bargaining process, and binding arbitration is an appropriate way to stop it. Regulations would fine-tune the arbitrator's role; rule makers ought to consider imposing either side's last, best offer as a way to encourage both sides to be more realistic in their offers and make negotiations more productive.

(...)

The third part of the bill is the one that troubles us. It would eliminate the secret-ballot elections that are used in most organizing campaigns and replace them with a method variously known as majority sign-up, petitioning or "card check." This change would correctly take away from management the power to pick employees' method of voting on whether to organize. But instead of returning that decision to the people who ought to have it -- the employees -- it would award it to a labor union, an outside third party that has the potential to become the employees' representative in bargaining but isn't yet, and shouldn't be before the vote.

--

I guess the GOP-controlled media has a tag-team propaganda machine going--as one cell stops lying about EFCA, a sleeper cell wakes up and picks up the slack.

[GrantDem]

Lies are all that corporate America has.

[bluestateguy]

1. Editorial boards don't want their newsroom workers unionizing

big surprise.

[anigbrowl]

2. Can you point out exactly what's dishonest about their story?

My understanding of EFCA is that if 30% of workers sign cards, the employer can hold a secret ballot. If a majority of workers sign the union cards, then the union is certified automatically by the NLRB, and no secret ballot takes place. In practise, this does eliminate the secret ballot. I'm not sure what part of the LAT article you find dishonest.

Personally I think this is a flaw in EFCA, and that a secret ballot should always be held.

[BlooInBloo]

4. You're kidding right?

[anigbrowl]

5. No, I'm perfectly serious

My point of view is that even if 100% of the workers signed card check you should go through the formality of a secret ballot anyway, even though it will cost a few bucks. I think you could easily get them run by some subsidiary of the NLRB in order to assure objectivity and a fair voting/counting process.

I just think the secret ballot is an important thing, and not something which should be waived by meeting a threshold condition.

[BlooInBloo]

9. Nah, you're kidding. Trust me.

[anigbrowl]

12. You seem unwilling to discuss my actual point. Why?

It's funny, every time I've discussed this on DU people seem reluctant to give direct answers to questions about unions. I've never managed to get a reply to my inquiries about the turf fight between the UHW and the SEIU either.

I posted a link downthread to the legislation as it currently stands as it relates to the holding of elections. I'm not happy about this provision. I think there should always be an election, and no I am not kidding about this.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. EFCA gives employees a choice. The story in the OP does not say that. That's the lie. n/t

[anigbrowl]

7. Be more specific

I think it does indicate that employees have a choice, that of whether or not to sign up for the union. I still don't agree with the part of EFCA that waives the need for secret ballots under some (not all) circumstances, and strangely nobody here on DU has ever responded to my requests for a justification of it.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. That's what YOU see.

The article says it clearly (I put emphasize on the phrase, without saying that I added it.)

I don't know how much more specific I can be.

Remember, the GOP sells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear">doubt, so it doesn't matter whether this editorial (or any article) accurately reflects EFCA or not, or if the reader can discern what the LA Times editors meant, it only matters that the reader (or voter) now doubts what EFCA will do regarding card checks. Once the seed of doubt has been planted, the voter is less likely to support the initiative.

Any initiative.

[anigbrowl]

10. Quit hand-waving. That is what the legislation says.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:4:./temp/~c110Xg1sTm::
Section 2(a):

"(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(6) 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. 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 (a)."

Now I'm in favor of most of the EFCA, but as regards this one issue I think it's poorly written, because I think the secret ballot should always take place so that individuals can express their preference in private. I don't see any reason why that part can't be amended and the rest of it kept as is.

Nor do I see (still) why you think the LA times is lying. The legislation most certainly does include a clause that waives the holding of an election under some circumstances.

[amborin]

16. secret ballot elections have helped corps use union-busting tactics and keep

workers from organizing, over and over again

the beauty of card check is that it makes organizing much easier

[Touchdown]

18. Reads pretty simple to me. What aren't you getting?

Employees either choose card check for themselves, or a ballot process. Once either is done, it's done. They're union. A second election is eliminated.

Valid authorizations means union cards or secret ballots. Both are valid.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. You're comparing the text of the bill with an editorial about the bill.

That's apples and oranges.

The OP is about the LA Times misrepresentation of the bill, creating doubt in the minds of people who read it.

[CreekDog]

11. but the workers decide whether to have an election or alternate means

it is the workers deciding in any case whether to have an election. that's fair.

[anigbrowl]

13. I disagree, but at least you are making an argument - thanks

I think that having an election is important because I think everyone should have the right to exercise their choice in privacy (ie, in the secret ballot). I think that asking people to sign a card involves a degree of social pressure on the person who is being asked; since this request will come from a co-worker, it involves a fairly high degree of peer pressure. I would also support and happily sign for an election to consider unionizing a workplace. However, whether I'd support that particular union and its representatives in that particular workplace is a decision I'd much prefer to make in private.

For this reason, I can't agree with the idea that it's fair to bypass the electoral stage because the workers are making a decision. There's a good reason elections are specified at the constitutional level in almost every country; it's very tempting for politicians of the day to say that the will of the people is clear and that an election is unnecessary. I'd rather the marginal inconvenience of holding a vote, even if the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

[CreekDog]

14. secret ballots are required in government --unions are not government

if you don't want to sign don't sign. you worried they are going to send goons to your house and take you out back and make you sign? sheesh. Republican talking points by the way.

if 50%+1 want to sign a card and publicly favor a union, then the union carries, period.

do you hold elections in every single aspect of your life? no.

do you realize by your standard we couldn't have absentee ballots in political elections because spouses, friends and family could watch and make sure we fill in our ballots a certain way?

[anigbrowl]

15. If I'm going to be represented by someone else, then I prefer to cast a vote for it.

Secret ballots don't prevent people from individually waiving their right to privacy - you can fill your absentee ballot out on your own or with friends as you see fit. But they can't look at your vote if you don't want them to. Elections are quite common in many walks of life. I see no problem with holding one on whether to instate a union or not.

I'm not quoting any republican talking points by the way, this is my personal opinion. I just like my privacy and think that all workers should be offered the option of a private ballot. Open elections, even of the card-check variety, invite peer pressure and peer pressure is subject to abuse. I've had both good and bad experiences with union people so my decision about whether I wanted to be represented by a union depends very much on the context rather than being a foregone conclusion.

[Touchdown]

17. So you're saying that the two election system is just fine and fair?

Nov 4th: Electronic voting machine breaks down. You call over an election worker. He fiddles with it and punches Barack Obama for you, because that's who you told him you wanted, but the machine kept confirming McCain. You vote is private?

Now, you've confirmed that Barack Obama is your choice, and you hit the final "cast ballot" button, and a message comes up. "Are you SURE you want Barack Obama? Come back in two months and vote for him again, just in case you change your mind. You will be required to attend regular Republican information sessions weekly until the second election is held."

This is what's happening now. Card check, then employer demands a second election (which isn't secret... they can watch you, and they usually do), the NLRB schedules said election months away from the card check, and there's nothing on the books that prevents them from threatening you job, propagandizing you, holding mandatory anti-union meetings, and making life miserable for the "trouble makers" until then. When the vote comes, like clockwork, a big percentage get the message and vote the other way and stab their co-workers in the back.

[Statistical]

21. Baby with the bathwater.....

If the system is as unfair as you described then why not just make it a fair secret ballot?
Why not eliminate all of the unfair tactics rather than develop a system in which a Union can be formed without a secret ballot?

Honest questions.

[Touchdown]

22. Because Card Check was developed decades ago.

It is more effective, simpler, has a stronger show of force, and cannot be rigged by management or employees who are afraid of the outcome.

I honestly don't understand people who are members of DU who are crying about this "secret ballot" BS especially when it's NEVER secret, and used to intimidate workers into not voting in a union.
You are a member of DU. That means you are either a Democrat, progressive or a liberal who generally agrees with at least some of the Democratic platform. You are here and are counted among us. You are no longer private, at least your opinions aren't. Most here even sport numerous bumper stickers on their cars, including pro-union ones. There is no secret to what any DUer stands for, since they are all on this site and posting their opinions on a daily business. Why the outrage about the lack of secrecy on this one issue?

Once you join a political organization, and a union is a political organization, paste bumper stickers on your car, join a campaign, walk for a candidate, and tell everybody you can to vote for this person, or support this issue, you are out of the closet, and even if these "secret ballots" were secret, everybody at work would know how you vote anyway. So the point of a secret ballot where you and other DUers is concerned is moot.

EDIT: and by the way. The baby is still taking a bath. The balloting process is preserved in EFCA, it just gives the employees the choice to have one or a card check. That's what the "FREE CHOICE" part of the legislation is all about.I will not call it "secret" because management makes sure it never was.

[Statistical]

23. I guess I am misunderstood.

The only sticking point for EFCA seems to be the 51% card check = union portion.

I find it hard to believe the a secret ballot is not possible. Sure my employer has a strong belief about knows my political positions but the vote itself is still a secret. They may think they know how I will/did vote but they will never know for sure.

I wouldn't want to sign a cardcheck simple because if it fails they certainly know where I stand.

Misguided as it is many Americans still believe the the secret ballot. The idea of a non secret ballot where views are solicited out in the open tends to rub them the wrong way. Maybe it is stupid however if my workplace was unionizing I would want a secret ballot.

I would not want to feel pressured to sign a card check. I mean if someone asks me to sign and I say "no" I seriously doubt they will leave it at that. Likely next question is why not.

I wouldn't want to have to explain my vote in Presidential election. I shouldn't have to explain my vote to anyone ever.

[Touchdown]

24. Not misunderstood, misunderstanding

EFCA does not eliminate the balloting process.

EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.
EFCA DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BALLOTING CHOICE.

Pressure is a republican talking point. Nobody you work with can threaten you more than management. nobody at work threatens others into signing a card. If you think so, then provide the proof. It's never happened in my experience. I've never read anything from a credible source that it has happened. It's a scare tactic by the corporations to maintain control over your servitude. Quit buying into it.

There is no such thing as a SECRET BALLOT. IT NEVER EXISTED IN THE WORKPLACE! Quit buying into that too.

[BlooInBloo]

3. It's funny because so-called "journalists" are SOOOOO certain that we can't live with out

newspapers.

:rofl:

[NNN0LHI]

20. LA Times gave us the Saddam has Winnebagos of Death lie too

Which we should never forget.

Don