NBC/WSJ poll question advanced false claim about proposed labor law
SUMMARY: An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll question advanced the false claim that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union. In fact, under current law, a secret-ballot election is required only when an employer demands it; an employer can recognize a union if it is supported by a majority of workers.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll question about the Employee Free Choice Act, currently before Congress, advanced the false claim made by opponents of the bill that a secret-ballot election is currently required before workers can form a union. The poll question stated, "As you may have heard, Congress is debating legislation that would change the way in which workers unionize. This change would allow workers at a company to join a labor union if a majority of workers at that company sign a petition saying they want to form a union, rather than by requiring the vote take place in a federally supervised secret ballot election as they do now" [emphasis added]. In fact, current law allows an employer to recognize a union if it has the support of a majority of workers. Indeed, the legislation would not eliminate employees' right to a secret ballot; as The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. As the Christian Science Monitor has noted, "The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot."
The National Labor Relations Board, in its September 2007 Dana Corp. decision, noted the existence and legality of voluntary recognition: "We do not question the legality of voluntary recognition agreements based on a union's showing of majority support. Voluntary recognition itself predates the National Labor Relations Act and is undisputedly lawful under it." In the decision, the board later observed that when an employer voluntarily recognizes a union, "[t]he employer's obligation to bargain with the union attaches immediately. For instance ... the union can begin its representation of employees, its processing of their grievances, and its bargaining with the employer for a first contract." In addition, the dissent in Dana stated that "it is beyond dispute that an employer may voluntarily recognize a union that has demonstrated majority support by means other than an election, including -- as in the present cases -- authorization cards signed by a majority of the unit employees."
I've yet to hear any convincing explanation of what exactly is wrong with an employer's right to have a secret ballot to ultimately determine the true will of his or her employees to form a Union.
Anytime I hear a proposition for this Law (which takes away the employer's right to have a secret ballot be the ultimate determination of their employees' will), all I hear are people saying "higher wages and better benefits and a safer workplace with the rights of workers respected"...
OK, that's an argument for a Union, but it's not an argument against the employer's right to a secret ballot.
Simply citing the many advantages to organized labor and to collective bargaining (advantages I appreciate and favor), in no way points out any problem or injustice involved, in the employer's right to a secret ballot.
I'm a big fan of worker's rights and of a safe workplace, and a big fan of fair and competitive wages, and I'm a big fan of following the Laws and the making of the Laws... but this one's got me befuddled: I can't see the actual harm or problem or injustice involved, in an employer having the right to require a secret ballot to determine the true and ultimate will of their employees to form a Union.
And I don't need to hear a general sales pitch for Unions, because I'm already sold. Neither do I need to hear various and many accounts of injustices in the workplace: I'd only want to hear what's wrong and what's the problem and where's the injustice, in an employer having the right to require a secret ballot, as the true (and uninfluenced and unintimidated) will of his or her employees.
I'm not sure, but IMO it is the workers who should decide how to organize themselves, the bosses should have no roll in how the employees determine if they want to join a union. I mean generally speaking, workers do not have rights when it comes to determining how the managment structure is organized or staffed.
This law doesn't take away from their right to have a secret ballot. That's the point. They keep saying that it does, but it does not.
Oh, I'm well aware of that fact. I was addressing Dems contention that the bosses should have some say in how workers organize themselves. He states more than once that it's the "employer's right" to have a secret ballot. "Card check" or secret ballot doesn't matter to me, just that it's the workers decision to make not the bosses.
The decision to organize belongs to the employees, and to them exclusively, as it should.
The determination here is of the National Labor Relations Board, in determining the true will of those employees to organize.
And the NLRB (if I'm understanding this all correctly) presently begins that determination when any Union or other organizer submits to them (the NLRB) signed cards of 50% or more of the workers being organized (we refer here to cards and the signatures on them, but the principle is exactly the same as a signed petition).
And before the NLRB grants that Union or other organizer an exclusive authority to represent those workers in a collective bargaining negotiation, the employer is allowed the right to require a secret ballot to determine the true will of those employees to organize under that Union or organizer.
I can't find the problem or injustice in what I just described.
It sounds like a perfectly reasonable and equitable process.
As far as the inference that the employer now participates in the decision of the employees to organize, they do not: they simply verify whether the submission of the signed cards (or petition) is indeed the true will of their employees... and they verify this, by way of a secret ballot (if they the employer so elects).
I can easily appreciate three things here.
1. The formation of a Union and the process of collective bargaining, has great impact on the employer.
2. The employer has no say in whether their employees can organize (nor should they), but they do have a right to be sure that it is the true will of a majority of their employees to form such a Union.
3. A secret ballot is a better and more true determination of the will of the employees in matters such as these, due to the stigma or other issues that might be involved, in refusing to sign a petition offered by a co-worker.
What I'm unable to appreciate is what exactly is the problem or injustice in an employer's right to require a secret ballot to determine the true will of their employees in being organized by a Union.
And I'd add an emphasis on the third thing I listed above, as being real and true and serious in these matters.
Again, to me the employer has no "right" to how employee's decide how to organize themselves. And just one other thing, if the employer actually cared about their workers and what the 'will of the employees" is, those workers probably wouldn't be trying to organize a union.
I've yet to hear any convincing explanation of what exactly is wrong with an employer's right to have a secret ballot to ultimately determine the true will of his or her employees to form a Union.
I just gave you a great reason yesterday-- these so-called secret ballot elections, that employers gin up over a long period of waiting, allow them to FIRE or HARASS or THREATEN employees in the meantime.
There's also nothing sacrosanct about an "election" either. And why do repubs herald all-mail ballots-- or encourage absentees-- yet decry this because it is not "secret."? Because they are hypocrites.
Card choice is enough. Employees can always de-certify a union, too.
just gave you a great reason yesterday-- these so-called secret ballot elections, that employers gin up over a long period of waiting, allow them to FIRE or HARASS or THREATEN employees in the meantime. CARLILEB
Or just shut down all together...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-03.htm
So the problem is that a secret ballot takes too much time to conduct?
And the solution then is to not have a secret ballot?
That makes as much sense to me, as saying that the problem of the lengthy recount of the Minnesota U.S. Senate election, is solved by not having such an election at all.
If a process is too slow for you, you improve it by speeding it up, not by eliminating it.
And the other things you mention, where employers might dismiss or otherwise interfere with employees who are trying to organize: those are problems distinct from having a secret ballot, and would have their own distinct solutions, but are not at all addressed or solved by eliminating the secret ballot... no more than we'd say that the many tricks and schemes used by Norm Coleman to slow the Certification of the Minnesota U.S. Senate election, should be solved or addressed by eliminating such an election.
Except the secret ballot isnt being eliminated the empolyees could still choose to have one and no it is NOT a seperate issue. It is when the ballot is mandated the employer is given TIME to intimidate and fire the employees he thinks are trying to start a union the NLRB has documented this practice over and over again. If they get a majority of card check signitures then a majority have agreed to a union. The only REASON for a ballot is the delay for the employer to harass intimidate and fire union supporters. Make no mistake if you are against the EFCA you are condoning EXACTLY that kind of employer malfeasance.
For some individuals in the prospective union, secret ballots are being eliminated. Once the list of employes who have signed cards reaches 50% the other employees' right to a secret ballot is gone. What happens to their right to a secret ballot? Maybe the 50% signed card mark should just force an immediate secret ballot. That might address the time frame issue and the secret ballot issue at the same time.
This shouldn't be about an employer's right to have the workers have a secret ballot. It's about the workers -- all of them. Any one of them should be able to depend on a secret ballot. That way, no company or union official can be sure he has succesfully convinced the employee to vote in any particular way.
Once 50% of employees sign pledge cards a secret ballot should be held within 5 working days of when the list is presented to the NLRB. Seems like a simple solution to me.
An interesting idea. I would think it would have to be within three days. Five still gives the company too much time to fire union supporters. Still an interesting idea.
Once pledge cards are signed, many employers use intimidation to sway the election in their favor. It's still a secret ballot, but many of the votes are cast under duress. In a just world, with a Government agency willing to defend the rights of the workers a secret ballot might be all thats necessary, but that's not how it work's in the real world work place.
Employers make threats, coerce some who've signed pledge cards and the workers have no recourse.
I've got thirty five years experience in organized labor including more than twenty years as a union official. Even the NLRB is swayed by political power.
I appreciate the reply, and I'm really trying to understand this Law, and especially the provision in it that rescinds the employer's present right to require a secret ballot as a true determination of the true will of the employees who are being organized (and all for the purpose of the organizer being excusively recognized as such by the NLRB).
Whatever intimidations or coercions employers might use against employees who wish to organize, those things can't possibly be caused by a secret ballot in this matter, as those same coercions and intimidations can be just easily used against those who've signed cards: the secret ballot is no sensible cause of those kinds of problems, and so therefore to eliminate the secret ballot, can't be their solution.
As a matter of fact, to sign a card is to identify yourself to the employer, and to refuse to sign a card is to identify yourself to the ones who are trying to organize you: in both of those of instances, you expose yourself to a stigma at least, and reprisal (or coercion or intimidation) at worst... the secret ballot addresses both of those situations, by keeping you anonymous from the employer in case you vote for the Union, and keeping you anonymous from the Union in case you vote against.
It makes perfect sense to me, and seems Just and equable if you find yourself between the employer and the organizers: truly, I'm trying hard to see the injustice and the problem that needs to be addressed by the employer's right to require a secret ballot, but I don't see it... and I'm not coming to the table with any pre-determined interest here, not to one side or the other, except maybe with a slant towards good Laws and the injustices they address... I'm usually not so dense in these matters, and I don't see exactly how I am dense in this particular matter.
Lastly, I don't see what all this talk about intimidation and coercion has to do with the secret ballot, as those terrible things are problems in and of themselves, requiring their own solutions (I'm under the impression the EFCA includes also penalties and fines for such injustices as those, and that they are a provision in the Law that is not in dispute, or not by me anyway).
And again, this matter of citing coercion etc., seems to me like citing the same thing in any other vote or ballot: were we to see such things at the ballot box and the polling place, we would never think the solution was to eliminate the ballot, secret or otherwise, but to address those things and eliminate them, and preserve the secret ballot as just one more safeguard against coercion or intimidation (whether by the employer or the Union), because when you vote in secrecy you vote without fear of reprisal... because who can coerce or intimidate you, if they don't know how you've voted?
Whatever intimidations or coercions employers might use against employees who wish to organize, those things can't possibly be caused by a secret ballot in this matter, as those same coercions and intimidations can be just easily used against those who've signed cards:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To what end IF there is already a union and the NLRB has mandated they begin bargaining. Why fire the workers at THAT point. It is shutting the proverbial barndoor. So not really. Why do you keep repeating the canard that the secret ballot is eliminated. The workers can STILL have a secret ballot if they want. The employers ONLY use the time the ballot takes to use the illegal and unethical tactics we have described.
To your second paragraph I dont know how much plainer to make it. Too many employers use the TIME the secret ballot takes to fire union supporters to intimidate the employees and bring in union busting lawyers to predate on the union supporting employees. The employers should have NO RIGHTS in the issue. It should not be THEIR decision in any way. The RIGHTS all belong to the workers as it is THEY who are deciding how THEY should be represented or whether they should be represented. The employers dont HAVE a right in that issue.
If at this point you arent seeing it I cant hekp you or you just dont WANT to see it. Yeah but they are rules without teeth. For instance the Wagner act makes it illegal to fire workers for trying to start a union but it happens several thousand times a year. IF you can get a hearing after ALL the legal hurdles and cost the only penalty to the employer is to pay the DIFFERENCE between what you made on the next job you got and what you would have made. Think about that if a union is sued under the Sherman anti trust law which has been used against union three times as often as against corporations, IF the union loses they must pay TREBLE damages but if a company fires a union promoter they only have to pay the difference in their wages IF there is a difference. The other laws are like that WHEN they are enforced. Raygun as much as told industries his justice dept flat wasnt going to enforce labor laws.
Well good luck getting real laws with teeth AGAINST corporations and FOR labor through ANY congress. Again ghe secret ballot is NOT eliminated. IF the employees want it they can have it but the employer has NO RIGHTS here. THEY are not being represented by the union and should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in how whether their employees are.