Thursday, February 26, 2009
Kotz / Legislature / Politics / The Economy The Secret Ballot Protection Act: It's All About Mooching Campaign Contributions
Posted by Pete Kotz on Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:25 AM
So begins their press release for the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which is supposed to maintain secret ballots in union organizing elections. But if there were truth in advertising, it might read something more like this:
"Senator Jack Johnson and Representative Susan Lynn have filed legislation that will hopefully funnel huge corporate campaign donations to Senator Jack Johnson and Representative Susan Lynn. Otherwise, it's just a worthless bill shrouded by ham-fisted duplicity."
While it may sound like they're carrying water for democracy, freedom, and perhaps even small children and cute bunnies, they're really just sucking up to the anti-union corporate set...
Here's the background: Any day now, the Obama administration will start pushing for a card check system in union organizing elections. Instead of holding a conventional vote, it allows labor to sign up potential members one by one. Once they've got signed cards from 51 percent of the particular labor pool they're organizing, the union is in.
While it may not seem like much, it's a big deal to both unions and employers.
The secret ballot heavily favors the company. Since the Reagan years, an entire consulting industry has sprung up solely devoted to teaching employers how to intimidate their workers. Stories are legion of supervisors telling workers the union will drive them out of business. And just to strike the proper level of fear, they also fire leaders of a drive, tail employees home, and generally threaten them with unemployment should they vote the union in. While much of this is illegal, that doesn't matter. It'll take years for the National Labor Relations Board to hear a fired worker's case. By the time an employee reaches for his secret ballot, he's scared shitless of being out of work.
But the card check system heavily favors unions. It allows an organizer to repeatedly visit a worker's home until he eventually signs. It also leaves plenty of time for the union to combat any intimidation taking place on the job. And that scares the shit out of employers.
Yet Obama will have no choice but to push for card-check soon. He swept the labor states from Massachusetts to Minnesota, where unions remain the single largest influence in the Democratic Party. And if the president wants those thousands of members manning phone banks and going door-to-door four years from now, pushing card check is the best way to satisfy them.
Which brings us back to the comedy duo of Jackson and Lynn. Obviously any federal measure would trump their Tennessee bill. And surely they know that. But they also know that employers-- especially Southern employers--are deathly afraid of unions. So while their bill is moot, it does provide the appearance of fighting the labor menace. And that will mean handsome contributions to Jackson and Lynn, who are doing their best to strike fear in the moneyed class. From their press release:
"The Secret Ballot Protection Act is a counter measure to the Democrats' dangerous card check legislation, which would subject employees to intimidation by making any vote public," said the House sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Susan Lynn. "Unions are facing declining membership in other parts of the country, and are targeting Tennessee's growing auto manufacturing base. The key to their formation is the ability to take away the right of secret ballot elections from employees subjecting them to intimidation by the union which controls the entire process."
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
How can anyone say that voting in secret favors anyone? The losing party either didn't make its case to the employees or the idea of change was not acceptable. Either way...no one should know how anyone votes on any matter unless the individual willingly shares that information. Stick to reporting the facts.
like
dislike
Actually, the reporter is absolutely correct, since this issue has nothing to do with secret ballots and everything to do with limiting employer intimidation of employees' right to choose a union. The current system is plagued by employer abuse and intimidation whenever employees use the flawed NLRB process to try to win union representation.
Current law already allows both for majoritiy "card check" recognition and for NLRB elections - except that the boss gets to choose the method. The Employee Free Choice Act would also protect the right to either an NLRB election or an election by a majority of workers signing cards. The difference, however, is that employees would get to make this choice - not the employer.
That is how it should be.
Sounds like common sense to me. If the employees are the ones voting on whether to organize or not, then the employees should choose the method for the election.
"But the card check system heavily favors unions. It allows an organizer to repeatedly visit a worker's home until he eventually signs. It also leaves plenty of time for the union to combat any intimidation taking place on the job. And that scares the shit out of employers."
Translation: it allows union goons to intimidate people into joining unions.
And that's all there is to it.
I think your view of unions is a little old, Gilbert. The goon faction is all but gone save for just a few unions that aren't around here. Today's organizers are more likely to be college grads, often women, and more along the lines of idealist liberals than the tough guys of old. The only way to tell them apart at Democratic fundraisers is that they're the guys who can't afford the nicer version of the navy blue suit.
I'm not bagging on you Gilbert. I've just covered labor since the early '90s, and this is the distinct and abiding trend. It's not like the old days when you called union presidents and everyone was named Carmine. The old guard tough guy unions have really fallen from grace (largely through federal prosecution). The ones that are rising, like the SEIU, are much smarter and more like liberal activists, more prone to out-hustling people rather than intimidating them. There's been a ton of stories written on this over the years. You could look it up.
If you say the goon factor is gone now. I would tell you that maybe in your experience that is your perception. In fact union intimidation and corruption happens regularly. I work all over the US in construction. Nail jacks to puncture tires, acid poured on cars, being run off the road in a vehicle and other similar issues certainly happens if not daily at least weekly somewhere in the US. You just need to know where to look.
As for union presidents being more professional now than ever before, I would agree. Many are actual professionals now where before they were union members that came up thought the ranks. Unfortunate that may be part of the problem. Because many were not rank and file members for any length of time, many unions not longer actually support their members. Just look at the current issues in the California health care union fiasco.
I call BS on the assertion that "an entire consulting industry has sprung up solely devoted to teaching employers how to intimidate their workers." That is just flat out untrue and potentially libelous.
The answer regarding union itimidation is easy. If the Union itimidates employees the employees themseveles can simply decertify the union at the next window period. (Defined as the period in which the intial contract ends, usually 2-3 years) To get a secret ballot election to decertify the union, an election must be called if the employees get only 30% of the signatures from the the unionized employees. Once the 30% is achived the "intimidated employees" can file a petition with the National Labor Relations Board. Why doesn't the anti-union people tell you this fact? It's because once certified, few unions ever decertified. This is the dirty little secret anti's refused to tell you.
Easy? You have to be kidding. But let's be intellectually honest and not partisan for a moment: Fact -- union's serve a purpose. Historically, it was about safety, decent wages and job security. Fact -- Union's have been so good politically, they have legislated most of what they used to get at the bargaining table, making them only really relevant to wages/benefits in many (but not all) industries. Fact -- union's are businesses that depend on enrolling employees so they can tax (it's called dues) them to pay the unions. Fact -- if employees don't vote for unions, unions don't get money. Fact -- union's strongly coerce people to sign cards (cont'd)
(cont'd) Fact -- in a campaign, unions lie.
But employers are not better. Fact -- employers historically treated workers without regard to safety, job security of wage rates. Fact -- that's gotten incredibly better (in part because of fed and state legislation brought about by unions) Fact -- employers scare and intimidate employees in elections, and provide misinformation to sway votes (just like unions). Fact -- there is a process (although it has insufficient penalties for EITHER SIDE) to deal with that. Card checks don't change the behavior for either party -- they just allow the union to do it, but not the employer.
one last point on card checks. I surmise that if we elected presidents after the 42 day period allowed for NLRB elections, and by card check (supervised by the government), President Obama would still be a Senator (if he would have gotten that far). But, the fact is he and his opponents had an opportunity to provide information (even if not all that good) to decently inform an electorate, who ultimately got to vote in secret. isn't that right -- the chance for full information and the ability to discuss/challenge it, plus the right to vote in secret more important than the ultimate outcome?
First, any report that has to include profanity to make its point isn't worth the reading.
Second, if you take the time to read the Employee Free Choice Act, you'll know that it's exceptionally pro-union. It requires that bargaining for a contract be finished in 120 days or it goes to binding federal arbitration. It stiffens penalties against employers, but not against unions, for unfair labor practices.
Next, studies show that up to 600,000 jobs would be lost if the Employee Free Choice Act passes. Who is willing to add that number of openings to our already increasing unemployment rate?
Unions had their days, about 100 years ago. Working conditions have improved tremendously since then. Today they're just a way for unions to tap dues out of people that were probably getting a fair deal most of the time anyway. Union organizers promise things that they are no position to deliver. Ask the employees at Vought Aircraft in Charleston, SC what the union did for them - nothing. It brought them the same contract that management proposed on day 1 and didn't keep hundreds of people from being furloughed for months on end.
Although I'm not a supporter of unions, as you can tell, I believe in a fair, secret election. If the employees want them in, then they should get them, and be prepared to pay the price when they do.
Hurray to Arlen Specter for holding the line against the Employee Free Choice Act. The Secret Ballot Protection Act needs to be supported by all of us, if we believe in democratic principles of a secret ballot election.
