U.S. Plans to Sue 4 States Over Laws Requiring Secret Ballots for Unionizing

[ProSense]

U.S. Plans to Sue 4 States Over Laws Requiring Secret Ballots for Unionizing

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

The National Labor Relations Board announced on Friday that it planned to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah in an effort to invalidate recently approved state constitutional amendments that prohibit private sector workers from choosing a union through a process known as card check.

The labor board asserts that the amendments conflict with federal laws and are pre-empted by those laws.

The state amendments were promoted by various conservative groups concerned that Congressional Democrats and President Obama would enact legislation allowing unions to insist on using card check, in which an employer recognizes a union as soon as a majority of workers sign pro-union cards. That method makes it possible for employees to unionize without elections. But Congressional Republicans blocked such legislation.

Under current law, employers can insist that secret ballots be used when unions are trying to organize private sector employees. But unions had hoped that the card check bill would make it easier to unionize workers because card check lets them gather majority support, often without giving employers the opportunity to campaign against the union.

more

NLRB advises four states that constitutional amendments conflict with federal labor law

[baldguy]

1. It's more important for the vote to be done without coercion or influence than it is to be secret.

[dkf]

2. Isn't it more coercive if everyone knows how you voted?

I don't get it.

Why Shouldn't they publish who you voted for too then? Why are our Political elections secret?

[baldguy]

4. Just think about it for a moment.

How do the anti-union conservatives want union votes to be held? With the employer controlling the process: The election is announced way ahead of time, giving the employer the chance to lie & intimidate & threaten workers every day up until it's held. There's mandatory meetings, led by management, where workers are told of the ominous consequences of joining the union - you'll be laid off, you won't get that promotion, your bonus will be reduced or eliminated, your benefits will be cut, you won't be able to take a break to get some water or go to the bathroom even - all because of the union. Of course, no union representative is allowed in to counter these claims. When the vote is taken, the company has reps there to ensure the workers remember the message that's been hammered into them in the time leading up to it.

It takes enormous courage and personal strength for non-union workers to vote FOR a union - even in 21st century America.

The way it SHOULD work - and why card-check is so important - is for the workers to get the facts from their union reps - and other sources if they choose, talk over their options with their families & fellow workers without the oppressive influence of management, and freely make their choice.

[dkf]

6. So why would a public vote showing your employer how you voted protect you?

Then won't the employer know exactly who to crap on?

I'd feel safer voting for a union if it was secret and less safe knowing it's public. Nope I still don't get it.

[LiberalFighter]

9. After enough cards are signed they are turned over to the NLRB.

The employer does not get to review who has signed those cards. That is current law and under EFCA. The public does not get to know whether anyone has signed or not signed the card either.

It is also a ULP (Unfair Labor Practice) for the employer or the union to coerce an employee to sign or not sign a card.

[ProSense]

5. From the article:

"Under current law, employers can insist that secret ballots be used when unions are trying to organize private sector employees."

A lot of the problem with the reporting is the impression that elections are necessary to form a union. This isn't about electing union leaders, this is about unionizing.

The RW has done everything to conflate the issues.

Media Matter, February 2009: Politico falsely suggested that a secret-ballot election is currently required to form a union

SUMMARY: A Politico article reported that the Employee Free Choice Act "would allow workers to organize a union by signing a card instead of holding secret-ballot elections." However, the suggestion that a secret-ballot election is currently required before obtaining union representation at a workplace is false. Under current law, a union that shows it has the support of a majority of workers can represent the workers if their employer voluntarily agrees to recognize the union, without holding such an election.

[dkf]

7. Signing a card or a secret ballot vote...what's the difference.

If you do one, wouldn't you do the other. Sigh.

I don't see how public votes of any sort won't have pressures from all sides.

[ProSense]

8. Here's the difference

"However, the suggestion that a secret-ballot election is currently required before obtaining union representation at a workplace is false. "

There is no law requiring elections to unionize. Signing a card is like a petition. An election and a petition are not the same thing.

[LiberalFighter]

10. Most of the time a petition is filed to have a secret ballot election.

In order for the NLRB to approve an election to take place requires 30% of the eligible employees to sign the authorization cards.

A secret ballot election can be bypassed when more than 50% of eligible employees sign the authorization cards and the employer recognizes the union as the bargaining agent. Most of the time employers will force an election so they have time to persuade their employees to vote it down by any means possible. Legal or illegal.

[patrice]

13. Don't you think it would make posers less effective? So everyone can tell better what's actually

going on at agreed upon points in the process.

[Sheepshank]

3. Many Utah employers fear their employees.

They fear the indpendence that some of them seek. They fear actually having to manange people in a decent manner, rather that having the lord/serf relationship. Employers tactic is one of intimidation. Employers bringing attention to their employees votes, openly talking about their voting is one of those ways to suppress the employee's ability to speak out. Move ahead with the suit!

[LiberalFighter]

11. Employers should not have the right to determine what organization(s) their employees are a member.

[boppers]

14. Neither should unions.

I fear employees are losing in a tug-of-war of power control.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Do you even know the process that unions use to decide whether they will organize?

For the most part the employees themselves put out the request to their preferred union to help them organize. And the employees do most of the work as labor unions are not allowed on the employer's premises during the campaign.

[patrice]

12. K&R

[old mark]

16. I have worked for an employer that scheduled a contract vote on a holiday,

so that those wishing to vote would have to come in on their own time on a day off. The employer was the state of PA, Ed Rendell, governor.

I came in to vote.

mark