Union Ballots

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What exactly is it that you do, anyways?

Dave

I work for a company that supports clients who outsource their HR / Payroll / Health Benefits / Work Comp administration.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

he's a GOP strategist ala Rove

Actually, just between you and me, I'm interviewing for Glenn Beck's old job.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I work for a company that supports clients who outsource their HR / Payroll / Health Benefits / Work Comp administration.

Ah, I see.

Okay.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

This is also true.

However, my experiences with merit pay systems, even when they have benefited me, is that they usually end up corrupted by "good ol' boy" networks and lead to internal strife. This is why most of the non-union shops I've worked in opted out of "merit pay" systems, and why union shops oppose them. It often leads to more drama and corrupt workplace politics.

Dave

Now why am I smiling and nodding my head.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

This is also true.

However, my experiences with merit pay systems, even when they have benefited me, is that they usually end up corrupted by "good ol' boy" networks and lead to internal strife. This is why most of the non-union shops I've worked in opted out of "merit pay" systems, and why union shops oppose them. It often leads to more drama and corrupt workplace politics.

Dave

This reminds me of a quick joke:

Q: What's the difference between a brown-noser and an ass-kisser?

A: Depth perception.

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

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

Pete

[d-ray657]

Wikipedia offers a neutral explanation of the effect the Employee Free Choice Act.

Some other thoughts. Management types are once again perpetrating a fraud on the public by arguing that this legislation would deprive employees of a secret ballot. Under current procedures, an employer may stipulate to recognition of a union that presents evidence of majority support - usually in the form of union representation cards signed by a majority of employees in the bargaining unit. In other words, as the law now stands if an employer deems it to be in its interest it can recognize the union without a secret ballot.

The proposed amendment actually provides greater safeguards, because under the EFCA, the NLRB must investigate the union's evidence of majority support. Under existing law, an employer may recognize the union with no neutral evaluation of the majority status. The change requires the employer to recognize the union, if the union has presented the NLRB with sufficient proof of majority support.

The use of signed representation cards or petitions also provides more fairness in the determination of majority support. Under current procedures employers can delay elections and recognition for months, while frustration with the delay weakens union support. Employers are also allowed to actively weaken that support. They are allowed to hold the workers as a "captive audience" requiring them to sit through slickly prepared anti-union presentations. So long as such tactics occur during work hours the employees must attend the presentations.

As is mentioned by the sponsors of the legislation, the employers can also use illegal coercive tactics to defeat a petition for union representation. Even if such tactics are found to be illegal, they can be with no cost to the employer so long if it only made threats about the effects or recognizing the union without actually firing anyone. Under those circumstances, the employer is required to post a notice for ninety days saying "we're sorry we broke the law and we promise not to do it again."

Union busting is a lucrative cottage industry. It exists to train employers in all of the dirty tricks that can be used to deny employees a real opportunity to vote in a fair election over union representation. The change in the law would require those practitioners to come up with a whole new batch of dirty tricks.

Regards,

D-Ray

[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

[merrylander]

Excuse my ignorance, but would not "salting" require that the employer is ready to do a heck of a lot of hiring in order to create a majority of pro union employees?