Boren 1st to oppose Employee Free Choice

[cannon_fodder]

My main fear is peer pressure.  A secret ballot has no peer pressure associated with it from either side.  No worry about retaliation from the employer if the vote fails, no worry about being run out of what might become a union shop if the vote passes.

I don't have a major problem with it either way I guess.  Just what my concern is.

Hometown
I went through one of those secret votes in 1979 and the employer used the process to intimidate employees and discourage them from voting to bring in the union. Among other tactics he had one lackey stand up in from the group, literally in tears, telling how she didn't want to the union because she was afraid she would lose her job.

You are becoming the kind of Union anecdotes.  My wife holds a teaching degree.  She didn't want to kick in 5% of her check to the teachers union (with a healthy portion of that going to support political candidates) and was treated like total crap when word got around that she wasn't going to join the club. She eventually quit because of it.  Did that really happen to my wife?  Does it matter?

In your anecdote the employees were free to listen to the whining and crying and assure the person, then vote for the union just the same.  People who are confronted by coworkers and pressured or even threatened into signing a petition have no such out.  They are forced to confront the person and give their position by signing on the dotted line.

Add in mandatory union shop laws and it's easy to force workers to pay unions for the privilege of working.   If the downside of a ballot process is a worry that an employer will plead with workers not to unionize, then I don't really see much of a downside at all.      So long as workers are not kept from collectively bargaining if they choose to and others are free to ignore said process, the system is fine with me. 

Someone explain the downside of the ballot process to me.  Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard a real negative (other than employers will have a chance to present their side of the argument, which is really a non-issue because we can all guess what it will be).  I might just be missing something on why this is a big issue unless it gives some kind of advantage to unions . . . in which case the supporters are not being very upfront about it.

[nathanm]

CF, I get your point, but you fail to make a case for preventing people from unionizing however they choose to do so.

BTW, one downside to secret ballots is that they can be tampered with much more easily without any recourse whatsoever. I think they make plenty of sense for, say, political elections, where any employer coercion is much less immediate and the difficulty of tampering is significantly greater.

Neither side are saints, but as it stands the employer is at a great advantage over those who want union representation.

[cannon_fodder]

Nathan:

The downside is the ability to pressure people into signing cards.  The peer pressure from a few individuals could unionize an entire company, even if it was really against the wishes of most people.  Group think is dangerous.

You can claim that is overstated.  I can only go on experience - non-union people are treated like crap, called names, and actively protested by coworkers (and on rare occasions worse).  That's pretty common knowledge and commonly occurring.   But even if it is a rarity . . .

If there is no downside to the ballot process then it is still the better method because it avoid the potential for abuse.  The ballot process is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, so unless the feds are in on the scandal there shouldn't be a worry about manipulating it from either side.  The same board sits in on meetings and reviews contracting procedures, etc. (delt with them in the past, damn professional).

I just see the potential for abuse in one system, and fail to see it in the alternative system.  Why do unions want the card-check system?
- - -

If the Employee Free Choice Act passes, 900,000 Oklahomans would see a 14% raise -– bringing more than $410,000,000 straight back into the state economy, every year. That’s math even Dan Boren can understand.

Which is why Detroit is doing so well right now.  Strong unions definitely means more successful workers.  Ask the airlines pilots too.  Or steel workers.   The math is really just that easy.  Unions = 14% raise.  No negative consequences are possible.

I'm not an expert.  But let me get this straight:  Currently, the law in Oklahoma is a group can petition for a ballot on forming a collective bargaining union.  If a majority vote for it, employees can join the union and can bargain with the company as a group.  the company is prohibited from retaliating against person for union membership and is limited in their response to a bona fide strike.   Employees that don't want to join don't have to, but also are not covered by any union negotiated contract by right.

I might be missing a perspective, but what's unfair about that to any party?

[nathanm]

Nathan:

The downside is the ability to pressure people into signing cards.  The peer pressure from a few individuals could unionize an entire company, even if it was really against the wishes of most people.  Group think is dangerous.

You can claim that is overstated.  I can only go on experience - non-union people are treated like crap, called names, and actively protested by coworkers (and on rare occasions worse).  That's pretty common knowledge and commonly occurring.   But even if it is a rarity . . .

If there is no downside to the ballot process then it is still the better method because it avoid the potential for abuse.  The ballot process is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, so unless the feds are in on the scandal there shouldn't be a worry about manipulating it from either side.  The same board sits in on meetings and reviews contracting procedures, etc. (delt with them in the past, damn professional).

I just see the potential for abuse in one system, and fail to see it in the alternative system.  Why do unions want the card-check system?
- - -

Which is why Detroit is doing so well right now.  Strong unions definitely means more successful workers.  Ask the airlines pilots too.  Or steel workers.   The math is really just that easy.  Unions = 14% raise.  No negative consequences are possible.

I'm not an expert.  But let me get this straight:  Currently, the law in Oklahoma is a group can petition for a ballot on forming a collective bargaining union.  If a majority vote for it, employees can join the union and can bargain with the company as a group.  the company is prohibited from retaliating against person for union membership and is limited in their response to a bona fide strike.   Employees that don't want to join don't have to, but also are not covered by any union negotiated contract by right.

I might be missing a perspective, but what's unfair about that to any party?

What I don't get is why unionization has to be all or nothing. You sign the card and pay the dues, the union represents you. If not, you're on your own. Seems like a much more simple and fair system to me, but what do I know. I'm just an IT guy. Why do we even need these election processes at all?

[Hometown]

Cannon, When you are a 100 years old you'll have a lot of stories to tell too.  You start feeling like you've done everything.

Anyway, the union wasn't given an opportunity to assemble the group and hold a meeting, like the employer was.  They union did send out some mailings and they were sort of low brow.

Union Lost.

You repeatedly mention the cost to employees of belonging to a union but you fail to mention the benefits.

[Red Arrow]

It should be easy to unionize however a group of people wants to. People shouldn't be forced to join the union, though. (nor should they be covered by the union contract if they don't)

How do you feel about an employer's perception that a non-union employee could be more versatile or more likely to stay on the job (no right to strike) and then compensate that non-union employee at a higher rate than an otherwise equivalent union employee on contract?

[cannon_fodder]

HT:

It just be that I don't understand the criteria to hold a ballot.  I thought they just needed to get enough signatures on a petition then they had a right to hold a ballot.  If they win, they have the right to form a union. 

I'd be OK with having a minimum percentage of employees needed to form a union by ballot.  Say: 25%.  Then those 25% can bargain collectively.  I have no interest in busting unions or discouraging unionization, I just want to avoid situations where people have to join a club to be employed.

And I recognize unions can have benefits.  I actual took a Sociology Class geared towards the history of labor relations in America, with the professor having published several books on unionization of coal miners in West Virginia.   Historically, unions did some great things.

More recently they still have an important place.  My mother was being discriminated against as a dental assistant in the late 1970's.  They had a union, she complained to the union that particular Dentists were making sexual comments and having her do extra work before she could leave that she wasn't being compensated for . . . and the treatment became more fair.  Certainly they do good by fighting for a fair share for employees.  Similarly, it can simplify things for an employer to deal with one entity and arbitrate disputes with that entity, to pay that entity to provide health care and pension benefits and not worry about it yourself, and to rely on the union to maintain a skilled, safe, and professional workforce.

However, I stand by my assessment that a Union can abuse an employer and destroy the golden goose.  It really does need to be a working relationship with the employer understanding employees are a reason for success and employees understanding the employer provides a paycheck.  An abuse by either party destroys the relationship and both suffer.

[we vs us]

How do you feel about an employer's perception that a non-union employee could be more versatile or more likely to stay on the job (no right to strike) and then compensate that non-union employee at a higher rate than an otherwise equivalent union employee on contract?

Hey, a non-union employee is WAY more versatile than a union employee, no contest.  Non-union can be paid whatever the employer wants to pay, and can be let go at the employer's discretion.  I'd call that maximum versatility. Still doesn't protect the worker in any way, shape or form.

[Red Arrow]

Hey, a non-union employee is WAY more versatile than a union employee, no contest.  Non-union can be paid whatever the employer wants to pay, and can be let go at the employer's discretion.  I'd call that maximum versatility. Still doesn't protect the worker in any way, shape or form.

The non-union worker has to protect his/her job by good performance.  The union cannot guarantee a worker his/her job but it is a lot more difficult to let a union worker go than a non-union.

My grandfather (tool & die maker) told my dad that the only thing the union could guarantee him was a strike.

[we vs us]

However, I stand by my assessment that a Union can abuse an employer and destroy the golden goose.  It really does need to be a working relationship with the employer understanding employees are a reason for success and employees understanding the employer provides a paycheck.  An abuse by either party destroys the relationship and both suffer.

You're right, of course -- that there's the theoretical potential to kill the golden goose -- but at the same time, capitalism is reliant on all sorts of uneasy truces like that.  Or rather, on relationships that wax and wane, and constant negotiations between self-interested parties. 

Unions, after all, supply labor, just like Alcoa supplies aluminum, or US Steel makes ingots, or Monsanto makes milled corn.  They're essentially one more supplier of resources.  And in the case of the Unions, they're much more highly regulated by the federal government than US Steel is.




 

[cannon_fodder]

Per versatility:

I ran a union shop for a while.  I had to assure potential customers that our workers were not strict union men.  They would not only do what their union job title said they had to do but would work with the customer to get the job done to satisfaction.  At John Deere, for instance, if a mop bucket spilled on the production floor it wouldn't be cleaned up until the night cleaning crew came to do it.  Mop and all would sit on the floor because "it wasn't my job."  That's the fear many employers have about unions (and of course isn't always the case).

Difficult to Fire:

Another problem with unions- they have a reputation for protected bad workers and not rewarding good ones.  A pair of hands is a pair of hands.  Who cares how well you perform or what else you may do - you will get your contract rate and won't be fired.  There actually becomes a group think that performing above par is a bad thing.

Want to fire the person who repeatedly took a crap in the shower (real situation), no can do.  Guy starts stealing anything with a company logo on it to sell on ebay (also happened, both at Deere)?  Forget it.  Teacher working hard, comes early, leaves late, meets with parents, etc - good for them.  But they will earn whatever their pay grade says they earn just like if they came at 7:45 and left at 2:30 and didn't give a damn what they were doing.

Unions can serve to encourage minimum instead of maximum performance.  Strive for mediocrity. 
- - -

Again, these are of course not always the case.  Unions are indeed a supplier of labor.  Some unions provide premium labor and position themselves to demand a the higher price.  Some just limit the supply of labor and extort money from the vendors.

They do need to reach that uneasy truce you mention.  As I say over and over, both side can potentially abuse the other.  Workers start off on the short end of the stick and their right to collectively bargain needs to be protected.  It just seems unions will keep riding the horse until they kill it whenever they get the chance.

[nathanm]

How do you feel about an employer's perception that a non-union employee could be more versatile or more likely to stay on the job (no right to strike) and then compensate that non-union employee at a higher rate than an otherwise equivalent union employee on contract?

If they've got 200 employees, 100 of which are union and 100 which are non-union, they've probably got a pretty good incentive not to piss off the union employees. Most employers aren't going to do well if a third or half of their workforce walks out on them.

Of course, I think an individual or collection of individual non-union employees should have the same right to strike that unionized employees do. Not that it would do much good, but it's still unfair to only allow that remedy to unions.

[Red Arrow]

With a mix of Union and non-union workers, the union worker should (but probably wouldn't) accept some pay differential from the non-union workers for the security of the union.  A similar situation is FDIC insured deposits vs. investing in the stock market.  I have enough lower paying deposits in FDIC (& FSLIC) accounts that I have only lost about 25% of my savings instead of around 50%.  I still have enough years to retirement that the market should turn around. I won't be as rich as more successful risky investors but I'm not as susceptable to short cycle downturns.

Strikes:
There is safety in numbers (most always) in quitting your job. If everyone quits and no one will take your place, the employer has no choice but to deal with you and your organization.  A strike is basically that simple. The workers refuse to work for the compensation the company is offering, they quit.  There are rules that make it more complicated for both sides.  There is plenty of evidence of wrong-doing on both sides of the fence.

If management treats the employees as they deserve to be treated, there is little need for a union.   Things were not always that way.  100 years ago I most likely would have been a union guy.

[HazMatCFO]

Sorry,

No argument can be made that an open ballot is better than secret. Knowing the pressure put on people to join by over zealous organizers or not to join by business owners is too great when your ballot is known. 

In so far as tampering with a secret ballot, the union has every right to be at the ballot box or whatever mechanism is used to verify the vote is accurate. If they suspect tampering, then take it to the courts.

Secret ballot is the only way to go in my opinion as an open ballot invites intimidation and violence by either side and this is not needed.

[nathanm]

If management treats the employees as they deserve to be treated, there is little need for a union.   Things were not always that way.  100 years ago I most likely would have been a union guy.

I agree that at many, if not most, employers these days, a union isn't really needed. That doesn't mean we should throw them by the wayside. Folks like Wal-Mart who don't pay employees for all hours worked and misclassify employees as part time who they claim are full time when talking to the public make a strong example of why unions are still needed at some shops.