Union Ballots

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm interested in the structure of unions and their procedures. A recommended book or website perhaps.

Can a business refuse to use union labor despite a vote by the employees for the union? Once a union is operating within an industry, how difficult is it to eliminate the union in that industry? Do unions support merit systems for raises and salaries or primarily seniority systems? What fee percentages do unions typically charge and why do unions want the employer to collect the fee?

Back in the day I was a sub rep with the union. During a discussion with some management the subject of one employee's job performance came up. The supervisor said "well if he does not shape up he will be terminated in six months". I said "Fair enough, once you have told him it is shape up or ship out, it is up to him". The super's boss said "Oh we can't tell him that." I looked at him and said "Are you nuts? He probably thinks he is doing an allright job, if you don't say anything why in hell would he change."

Yeah I was mouthy then too, but the problem is not always the union's fault.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm interested in the structure of unions and their procedures. A recommended book or website perhaps.

Can a business refuse to use union labor despite a vote by the employees for the union? Once a union is operating within an industry, how difficult is it to eliminate the union in that industry? Do unions support merit systems for raises and salaries or primarily seniority systems? What fee percentages do unions typically charge and why do unions want the employer to collect the fee?

Here's as good a place to start as any. It provides a copy of the NLRA and discusses how the NLRB administers the Act.

http://www.nlrb.gov/

Regarding your questions:

A company can't refuse to bargain with a union once a bargaining unit has voted in favor of representation. However, while the NLRA requires the union and the company to bargain, it does not require the two parties to agree on anything. Generally, binding arbitration is used in public sector, not private sector, union contracts. It has happened where bargaining was commenced but no contract resulted (and the union eventually was de-certified by the employees), but it doesn't happen often: the process is ugly and requires deep pockets.

The process for de-certification of a union is similar to certification: as long as 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit sign a petition to de-certify the union, the NLRB will hold another secret ballot election, and the majority of employees must vote to de-certify. De-certification elections can't happen within one year of the initial secret ballot election that certified the union as the representative of the bargaining unit.

Regarding merit pay, this is typically non-existent in union contracts. Seniority in a particular job is the typical determinant of wage rates.

The provision for unions dues withheld from wages is called check-off, and is typically one of the first items that the union wants to agree upon in any contract negotiations. Without check-off, I suspect most unions would find consistent collection of dues very challenging, particularly in "right to work" states. As far as dues, rates very widely by industry and by the type of jobs within represented within a particular bargaining unit. A rough average is typically about two hours per month in wages based on the average hourly rate within the bargaining unit.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think the issue at hand is "card check." I don't know enough about it, but on its face I think I oppose it. A secret, timely ballot seems the only fair way IMHO.

dRay (and others) - what's your vibe on Card Check?

If they could actually get a "timely" secret ballot which apparently seems to be impossible else why come up with the card check idea? If the worker has to sign the card they are wide open for retaliation. As to the NLRB maybe that's why all the workers there said "Ciao Chao" after the 2008 elections.

It always amuses me when anti free traders say "First they must adopt out labour laws." We have labour laws? WHo knew?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think the issue at hand is "card check." I don't know enough about it, but on its face I think I oppose it. A secret, timely ballot seems the only fair way IMHO.

dRay (and others) - what's your vibe on Card Check?

I oppose it, because it makes it too easy for the unions to misbehave. The purpose of the cards is to demonstrate to the NLRB that there is sufficient interest to hold an election. Some in organized labor say that a card return of more than 51% is a majority vote. I dunno. The secret ballot is still the best way to gauge true sentiment, IMO. In my final analysis, I'd say the system should stay as is, but with some "streamlining" to make it a quicker process.
More time=More time for both sides to play politics.

However, having said that, if a "Card Check" demonstrates a CLEAR majority, of say 66%, or higher, or shows a CLEAR lack of interest, say 33% or lower........................Why bother with an election?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I'll let D-Ray answer those questions.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

But merit pay makes sense. If a company can't handle it it shows their incompetence.

Pete

[whell]

I won't dispute much of your post above. Having been on the "management side" during a union election process, I'd offer these observations:

- as far as a company using "illegal coercive tactics", we made sure our supervisors were thoroughly trained on what they could and could not say or do during a campaign. Unfair labor practice citations are great PR tools for a union to use against the employer during a campaign.

- a union organizing campaign is a tough business, and both sides can become quite aggressive in their tactics. For example, "salting" is becoming more and more common-place, and is supported by case law. Salting is where the union sends "ringers" in to apply for jobs at the employer. These individuals have no intention to work for the employer long term, and may legally lie to the employer to increase their chances of getting hired provided they don't fundamentally mis-state their qualifications.

- coercion is not restricted to the employer in a union campaign. Lots of examples that I've seen of property damage - both the employer and fellow employees - physical intimidation, and threats of violence.

[d-ray657]

I'll agree that ULP citations might be useful in a union organizing campaign. Unfortunately, however, such findings are often made after an organizing campaign has already taken place, and the atmosphere has been poisoned to the extent that a fair election is impossible.

You use the term aggressive to describe salting. I'll agree the salting shows aggressive pursuit of a union campaign, but would clarify that it is a peaceful approach to organizing.

As far as the qualifications, more often than not, the salts are going to be considerably more qualified than the run of the mill applicant for a non-union job - particularly in the construction industry (where most salting occurs). One of the great successes of the union movement is the establish of apprenticeships. In the sheet metal trade, for example, the apprentice completes five years of a combination of classroom time and on the job training before he or she qualifies as a journeyman. This level of training, as well as the constant exposure to other highly trained journeymen, develops skills that are very difficult for non-union workers to match.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

- coercion is not restricted to the employer in a union campaign. Lots of examples that I've seen of property damage - both the employer and fellow employees - physical intimidation, and threats of violence.

And, I have seen violence carried out against strikers. Bloody violence involving nightsticks and riot gear, instigated by local police, no less. Funny, how the press showed up to film, just before the cops arrived. Then promptly left as soon as it was over. Orchestrated effort? Sure looked that way to me. And, who could possibly have the financial where-with-all to buy the appropriate officials to set such a thing up, in a "pro-business" red state?

What was the work governor Walker used? "Troublemakers"?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What was the work governor Walker used? "Troublemakers"?

Dave

If non-Wisconsin residents are bussed in to join the protests in WI, which ended up trashing the capitol grounds and doing about $7MM in damage to the capitol building....yeah, those would be troublemakers.