Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Employee Free Choice Act Federal

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Employee Free Choice Act Federal

    I am interested in thoughts (both sides) of the pending Employee Free Choice Act.

    This proposed legislation would eliminate secret ballot elections for representation purposes and will eliminate the ability for employees to express their preferences in secret.

    If passed, a union would gain recognition if 50% of workers sign authorization cards.

    Unlike secret ballot elections where a voter makes his or her decision in private, authorization cards are signed in the presence of a pro-union employee or a union organizer.

    You do not have to read long to find thousands of examples where organizers threatened workers and of pro-union workers exerting all kinds of pressure, threats and violence to get employees to sign authorization cards.

    When there is a secret ballot, however, workers are able to vote their conscience and not be intimidated......by either side.

    I find it interesting that unions support card check for organizing yet favor secret ballot elections when it comes to decertifying a union. This is where I belive the unions have tipped their hand. Clearly they are not interested in fairness, rather they are more interested in adding to their coffers.

    I favor maintaing the current democratic system which allow voters to make their decision in private, supervised by the NLRB. Anything else seems..........unAmerican

    Let the debate begin!

  • #2
    There are two of us that are not neutral Joe.

    Here's the question. Why is it unions want card check for representation elections but want to maintain elections for decertifications?

    If unions pushed card check for both representation and decertification and allowed employees to go through either process any time they wanted.....now that would be fair.

    Comment


    • #3
      Now Joe, please remember the rules of the board, no personal attacks.

      Here's one simple fact. Even with the secret ballot process where people get to make their choice in a private fashion...unions in have fallen from 30% to 7.4 % of private employers since 1978.

      There are a lot of reasons behind that. One is that most people believe not only that unions are irrelevant but they are dangerous. Let's face it...there is nothing to sell any more. Unions do not add any value and in fact they destroy it and people see this very clearly....just look at the numbers Joe....7.4% down from over 30% in the span of less that one working career.

      We all know why unions are pushing this Act...they are desperate. They cannot survive under fair rules where people vote so they are attempting to take away one of tenets of American democracy...the secret ballot election.

      You state my argument is is that "management should be able to do and end run around the contract they agreed on". That is incorrect,

      My argument is that if you believe in your product and it's good to have card check for representation elections then it must be good to have card check for decertification elections too.

      If unions truely believe that we should all do what is in the employees best interests then why would you not support allowing them to card check out of the union? The answer Joe is that unions are a business and they do not care about employees...they care about getting employees dues.

      You ask me "Who is in better position to coerce ?" Please tell me, is there anyone on this earth who feels comfortable with giving the Teamsters the power to intimmdate peole into signing cards without the security of a secret ballot election? Now before you answer....please review a selection of some of the Teamsters finest hours....



      Atlanta Teamsters boss Sentenced for Thefts
      Teamsters Benefits Manager for Westchester County, N.Y. Local Sentenced
      Convicted Teamsters Boss Sentenced for Fraud, Embezzlement
      Ousted Chicago teamsters boss Faces Fine, Jail for Violating Gag Rule
      Billionaire Clinton Friend, Union Accused of Racketeering
      Boston Local Defends Convicted Brother of Fugitive Mobster
      Teamsters Houston Boss Convicted for Fixing Re-Election, Taking Kickback
      Hoffa Re-Elected for Third Term; Corruption Still a Factor
      Atlanta Local Boss Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement
      Election Czar Rules Hoffa Crony Stole Funds
      National Convention Marked by Tension, Violence
      Rochester, N.Y. Local Teamsters boss Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement
      Ex-Treasurer of D.C. Local Sentenced, Forced to Repay
      Whistleblowers at Houston Local Leads to Boss's Indictment
      NYC Waste Haulers' Strike a Legacy of Organized Crime
      Former International Union Executive Assistant Sentenced
      Ex-Bookkeeper for Tennessee Local Indicted for Embezzlement
      Former Teamsters Bookkeeper in Virginia Sentenced for Embezzlement
      [B]Union Reformers Accuse Chicago Local of Ballot-Stuffing
      Union Dissenters Point to Campaign Violations by Hoffa Allies
      Washington, D.C. Treasurer Pleads Guilty to False Entries
      New Report Claims Union Is Mob-Free, but May Be a Cover-up
      Bonanno Crime Boss Gets Two Life Terms
      Members Sues Local Chief & Hoffa Feds Acting on Report of Teamster Corruption in Chicago
      Top Hoffa Assistant Suspended
      Chicago Local in Turmoil over Officer Elections
      Ex-Bookkeeper Charged with Embezzlement in Mass. Court
      Top NY Teamsters Boss Ousted by Review Bd.
      IRB Bars Ex-Houston Chief from Union
      Son of Frmr. N.Y. Union Chief Indicted
      Frmr. Teamsters Secy. Confesses Falsification in Indiana Fed. Court
      Feds Charge 1st Member of Doyle Dynasty in NY
      Case against NY's Top Teamster Boss in Hoffa's Court
      Former Ethics Watchdog Points Finger at Hoffa
      Teamsters Internal Ethics Watchdog Resigns; Claims Hoffa Obstructs Investigation of Houston, Chicago Locals
      Trustee Uncovers Embezzlement, Faces Harassment in NY
      Independent Rev. Bd. Hears Charges against Houston Bosses
      DOL Obtains Nearly $5 Million Settlement in Cap. Consultants Cases : Houston Local Under Investigation for Possible Kickbacks & Embezzlement
      Boston Teamster Boss, Accomplice Plead Guilty
      New Indictments of Boston Teamster Boss
      More Allegations Surface of Union Featherbedding on Boston Film Sets
      Boston Electronics Owner Convicted of Helping Teamsters Boss in Theft Ring
      Hoffa NJ Vice President Charged by Union with Mob Links
      Ky Sup. Ct. Upholds Indictment of Teamsters in ‘95 Election Case
      Ex-Ky. President Sentenced for Using Union Funds to Pay for Car
      Independent Rev. Bd. Forces IBT Takeover of NY Local
      Ex-Bookkeeper Sentenced for Falsification in Calif.
      Ex-NY Teamster Boss Indicted for Extortion
      Boston Teamsters Goon Sentenced for Racketeering
      Controversial Boston Local under Spotlight for Possible Embezzlement at Airport Parking Garage
      Convicted Extortionist Goes from Mass. Sheriff to Union
      FEC Finds Widespread Irregularities with Teamster PAC
      Union Pension Manager Gets Light Sentence for Kickbacks
      Whistleblower on Teamster Racketeering in Mass. Film Industry Vindicated
      Ex-Ky Pres. Used Union Funds to Pay Off Car Lease
      Ex-Bookkepper Pleads to Falsification of Records in CA
      Teamsters Charged with Using Corrupt Audit Firm in Pol. Spending Disclosure
      Buffalo Teamsters Hit with NLRB Complaint for Illegal Dues Seizures
      Hoffa Seizes NW Airline Affiliate, Fearing Break from IBT
      Fed. Investigation of Mobbed-Up Bos. Local Chalks up First Conviction
      Did Boston Teamsters Plot with Corrupt Government Agents to Frame Federal Investigators?
      IRB Ousts Hoffa's "Duke" for Nepotism
      Government Recovers $8.583 Million in Chicago Racketeering Case
      NLRB to Prosecute Alaska Local for Beck Violations
      Judge Enjoins Inter-Union Infighting to Protect Trouble Local's Integrity (5.12 06/10/02)
      Troubled Boston Local's School Ordered to Vacate Rent-Free Lot
      Davis, Ansara Sentenced; Pay $1,345,000 in Restitution
      IRB Probing Scandal-Scarred Boston Local
      Nash Finally Sentenced, Gets Off Easy
      Mississippi Teamsters Boss Stole $2,700
      Inspector General Sees an Increase in Racketeering Case Activity
      Death Threats Alleged in Connection to Racketeering Probe of Boston Local
      Indicted Boston Boss Targeted by the Mob
      Cleveland Local in Trusteeship; Boss Accused of Unauthorized Salary Increases
      Union Fund Manager Admits to Kickbacks
      Longshore Union Allegedly Infiltrated by Genovese
      Indicted Boston Boss Resigns from Board of State Agency
      Boston Boss Faces Embezzlement and Bribery Charges
      NLRB Brings Charges Against Youngstown Local
      Union Fund Manager Charged
      Honolulu Local Liable for Additional $544,000
      DOL Attacks Tainted Seattle Election
      DOL Wins Subpoena Dispute over Honolulu Local
      IRB Accuses New Yorker of Visiting with Reputed Genovese Mobster
      Four Months Home Detention for Dayton Boss Who Stole $6,400 Mississippi Boss Allegedly Stole $2,400
      Alleged Associate of Boston Boss in Custody
      Hawaiian Local Must Pay Nearly $1 Million in Tort Damages to Employer )
      California Local’s Videotaping of Employees is ULP
      New York Local Violated Federal Labor Law
      Appeals Court Reinstates Conviction and Sentence of Chicago Boss Minnesota Local Liable to Overnite for Property Damage
      Feds Raid Boston Boss' House
      Boss Accused of Fixing Chicago Election;
      Union Training School Linked to Corruption Probe (4.12 06/19/01)
      Leedham Slate Violated Election Rules;
      Ohio Boss Accused of $4,800 Theft
      IBT Settles Florida Violence Case
      Carey's Permanent Expulsion Upheld
      Hoffa Campaign Ordered to Return $42,000 in Contributions
      Boston Boss Reportedly Targeting Informants
      Bush Nominee Tied to Boston's Local 25 Scandal
      HQ Staffer Resigns over $3,400 Discrepancy
      Overnite's RICO Suit Rolls On
      Attorney Predicts Action on Money-Laundering Scandal
      New Info on McAuliffe's Role in Money-Laundering Scandal
      Review Board Hears Case Against Detroit Bosses
      Carey Indicted! Trumka Next? Hamilton Loses Appeal
      Hollywood Talks to Boston Grand Jury
      Hoffa Ally Lied about Organized Crime Ties
      Teamsters Ethics Code Behind Schedule
      Union Pension Managers Guilty of Racketeering
      Florida Boss Charged with Extortion & Drug Crimes
      Las Vegas Trustee Replaced
      Pennsylvania Unionists Sentenced for Assault
      Federal Grand Jury Now Probing Trumka
      Probe of Boston Local Reportedly Expands
      NLPC Files Complaint to Disbar Corrupt Trumka
      Massive New York Probe Nabs 11 Union Bosses
      Boston Drug Indictment Linked to Local 25
      Gore and Corrupt Bosses at Democratic Convention
      Chicago Boss Sentenced for Bribery
      Film Industry has Massachusetts Local Probed
      Kentucky Indictments for 1995 Elections Revisited
      Minnesota Local Must Pay Overnite $30,000)
      Indiana Bosses Charged with $894,000 Diversion
      Detroit Bosses, Hoffa Pal, Accused of Embezzlement
      Judge Rejects 2001 Election Rules)
      Discrimination Suit Against New Jersey Local Proceeds
      Minnesota Teamsters Plead Guilty to Crimes Against Overnite Employees
      Ex-Indiana Boss Admits to Conspiracy
      Pennsylvania Union Boss Sentenced for Union Violence
      Chicago Pension Funds' Scandal Uncovered
      Another Teamsters Scandal Figure Sentenced
      No DOJ Oversight of 2001 Election
      Corrupt Long Island Local Gets Election Go-Ahead
      IRB Wants Civil Charges Against Three New York Bosses
      Shooting Believed Tied to West Virginia Strike
      New Jersey Fund Violated ERISA; Wrongly Denied Pension
      California Local Loses Union Dues Suit
      Gore Asked to Repudiate Support of Corrupt Unions
      Illinois Boss Guilty of Accepting Bribe (3.1 1/3/00)
      Hamilton Convicted, Criminal Probe may Expand
      Cleveland Plain Dealer's Editorial on the Teamsters Money-Laundering Scandal
      Philly Boss Removed, Local in Trusteeship
      IRB Charges Carey-aide with $12,650 Embezzlement
      Yonkers Local Taken Over, Bosses Ousted
      Fired Business Agents Sue Kentucky Boss
      Teamsters Corruption Trial Kicks Off
      Ohio Local Blamed for Failure of Union Health Plan
      Pennsylvania Teamsters Arrested for Beating Clinton Protesters
      UPS Employee Files Civil Conspiracy Lawsuit After Stabbing by Teamsters Assailants in Florida
      Corruption Charges Oust New York Boss, But Not Family
      Felon Returns to Power in Cleveland
      California Local Fined Worker Improperly )
      Hoffa Campaign's Fine Upheld
      IRB Member Didn't Recuse Himself
      Hawaiian Teamsters Indicted for Arson
      Texas Boss Disqualified from Office
      Illinois Boss Guilty of Intimidation
      Corrupt New Jersey Local Oversight to End
      Ohio Local Charged for Threatening Employee
      Three Hoffa Slate Members in Trouble
      DOL Forces Return of $20 Million to Pension Plan
      Carey Fundraiser, Blitz, Fined $2,000
      New York Bosses Return $1.5 Million
      Cleveland Boss Sentenced for Perjury
      Congress Probes Kentucky Corruption
      $729,000 Returned to Teamsters Pension Fund
      More Union Arrests in Florida
      Kentucky Governor Linked to Union Indictments
      A Fifth, Charney, Pleads Guilty in Teamsters Scandal
      Hoekstra Investigation gets Hard-Won Documents )
      Boss Sentence for Embezzlement
      New Jersey Kickback Agent get Probation (
      Hoekstra Turns Probe to DOL
      Federal Sting Nabs Corrupt Boss
      Rerun Election Pushed Back
      Texas Boss Gets 51 Months for Theft
      Teamsters Bosses Ante-Up $2 Million
      A Fourth, Blitz, Pleads Guilty in Teamsters Scandal
      Acting-President Sever Reprimanded
      Ex-Teamsters Boss to Pay $136,000 for Clean-Up
      Cleveland Teamsters Boss Guilty of Perjury
      Teamsters Cited for Illegal Dues Collection
      Libel Suit Against Teamsters Continues
      Tainted Family Returns to Power
      Election Monitor Tries to Blackmail Congress
      New York Teamsters Indicted
      Violent Teamsters Shut Down California Port

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok, keep everything the same, but stop the captive audience meetings. Employers can not "coerce" employees in regards to their decision to join (or not) an existing union (in a right to work state). Or have the employers rep (union buster) and a union rep engage in a debate on the merits in front of the members of the potential bargaining unit. Unions want a level field staggerwing, and they've never had one. As an elected rep for a bargaining unit if i can gain an advantage for my members thru bargaining or legislation i will take it.....that's my "job"

        As far as the "list" goes wing....all i have to say is enron.....halburton.....etc, etc. IMHO big business has taken far more from the people than anyone else could ever dream of....

        for the record wing i am a 4 yr union member. I was "active" in the organizing of our shop. Former steward, currently serve the members as a trustee and committeeman.

        Comment


        • #5
          Joe,

          I don't understand something.

          You state that keeping the elections secret enables the company to clean up their act until no union is necessary... at least in the eyes of the voting workers.

          The structure as it is set up now a majority can vote in the union thru card count,and the election is scheduled 6 months down the road giving the employer ample time to clean house.
          Considering that the goal of all this is to improve the worker's state... if there are private elections that encourage worker rights and wants... who loses other than the Union itself?

          That is why union membership has dropped more than 75%. Unions are becoming dinosaurs and their intentions are become too clear. Unions are slowly becoming a bad joke where the punchline is intimidation and corruption.

          You have talked often about union busting. What about the heavy handed tactics used by the unions to bolster membership? To intimidate non union shops opening up in classically "union" towns?

          The unions' hands aren't exactly clean here.

          Your answer will, of course, be that the union landscape has changed. The corruption is gone and new management and union bylaws keep the corruption from returning.

          What you should review is that labor law has also changed significantly mirroring many (but not all, admittedly) of the wants of labor. Governments move more slowly than they should... but in an economy with less than 5% unemployment, the power is IN the workers' hands.

          Sorry. Give me a reason for the change in legislation that doesn't end with "and the Unions, as entities, benefit."

          My congressmen and women are not being paid to protect your unions, but, instead, the people in them. I don't see how this change gives the workers an iota of benefit that they didn't already have.
          Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

          I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

          Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
            Ok, keep everything the same, but stop the captive audience meetings. Employers can not "coerce" employees in regards to their decision to join (or not) an existing union (in a right to work state). Or have the employers rep (union buster) and a union rep engage in a debate on the merits in front of the members of the potential bargaining unit. Unions want a level field staggerwing, and they've never had one.
            Rarely does someone contradict themselves in their own statement so blatently.

            You say that employers cannot coerce workers one way or the other (agreed), but all elections are held in the open.

            Why are debates held between pro and con opinions such a bad idea? What are you so very afraid of.

            You say you want a level playing field. A level field is where BOTH sides are heard. Not where only the union's voice is heard, the employer isn't given time to respond, and an open election is held.

            C'mon. If you are going to cheat the rubes, at least be honest that you are running a con.
            Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

            I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

            Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, no surprise that the other side of the argument has scurried about in an attempt to change the question.

              Again, the simple question is....if according to unions, card check is the only fair way to decide representation elections....why do the unions demand an election for decertification elections?

              We all know the answer. Unions are not interested in employee welfare, they are interested in maintaining a steady revenue stream. Unions in America are nearly dead, 92.6 of all employees in the private sector chose to be union-free.

              Since the unions have no product to sell, this is one last desperate attempt to gain through legislation what they cannot win in a fair, secret ballot election. 94% of all union PAC money goes to bought and paid for democrate politicians who have in exchange for this blood money are supporting this un-American legislation.

              If the union product is so good....unions should not be afraid of allowing the employees to decert with card check.

              For the record, I am a former union member with first hand experience of how union thugs steal the members hard earned pension plan.

              Comment


              • #8
                You missed my point cyjeff. The point was that employers can not coerce employees ref- membership AFTER a successful election takes place. prior to said election it is a captive audience meeting free for all. I and many (most) of my coworkers found the films humorous, but the fact remains that the employer has a distinct advantage of being able to "force" the employees to "hear" their opinions on the subject. Unions do not have this benefit. If you don't want to listen to them you just "close the door" (literally)......If the "meetings" were a debate between employer reps and union reps it would be a far more "democratic" way for employee's to get the information they need to make an informed decision.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well Joe, I'd like you to take as many shots at it as possible until you come up with a truthful answer.

                  You don't think the law which provides secret ballot elections is fair so you want it changed. Yet, your position that requiring a contract is very fair and you want that to stay the same. Finally you state that the current law which requires an election for a decert is fair and you want that to stay the same.

                  Even a child realizes that you want your cake, eat it too and want the employees to pay for it.

                  Let's try to talk about WHATS FAIR. If fairness to employees is important to you and to unions and this is what it's all about to you....then pray tell...why would you not support changing the law to allow employees to card check in and out whenever they decide?

                  Could this possibly be about money? Their money moving to your pockets? I think so...and so do most of working Americans.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And let's get a couple of other facts out there while we are at it.

                    If a company has no union, how in the heck could someone be a union buster? If I was working decert's the term would be accurate howver this is not the case so please attempt to come up with a more accurate and clever term. Personally I like "Truth Gospel"

                    Take a look at every unions LM-2 and you will find tons of people called "organizers". In the spirit of Item #1...let's start calling them "Union Pushers".

                    There are several differences between the Union Pushers and the Truth Gospels. Pushers have no product to sell. Americans realize the uselessness of unions and union pushers and union membership has fallen from 30% to 7.4 %.

                    Union Pushers resort to using fear, intimindation and skull cracking. They are an angry, angry lot. Then they wonder why they can't win an election? Could it possibly be that people do not want to join a club where they might wake up dead one morning if they step out of line, or lose their pension cause the union boss needed a new house and boat?

                    Unions are dead my friend and the revenue stream is drying up. All the yelling, screaming, threatening, back office politics and violence is not going to change the future.

                    My prediction...2012 = 3.5%, 2016 = 1.8%, 2020 = .9% 2024 = ZERO

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
                      You missed my point cyjeff. The point was that employers can not coerce employees ref- membership AFTER a successful election takes place. prior to said election it is a captive audience meeting free for all. I and many (most) of my coworkers found the films humorous, but the fact remains that the employer has a distinct advantage of being able to "force" the employees to "hear" their opinions on the subject. Unions do not have this benefit. If you don't want to listen to them you just "close the door" (literally)......If the "meetings" were a debate between employer reps and union reps it would be a far more "democratic" way for employee's to get the information they need to make an informed decision.
                      Noid,
                      You've somehow forgotten to add a few facts.

                      First, the reason the law allows an employer to have meetings is because they are paying the employee. If you guys want to have a meeting somewhere else...feel free to start paying them to come.

                      To balance that, the law allows the union pusher to visit employees at their home to use their fear and intimindation tactics to coerece employees to sign a card.

                      In fact, the law even requires the employeer to violate employee privacy and give the union pusher their address.

                      As for the debate issue...even the most incompetent union pusher knows the reason why employer don't engage in debate. The law currently allows union pushers to make any promise they want while it is illegal for the employer to make the same promise.

                      This is why employers Guarantee Cards with the promises the union pushers printed on them with a guarantee that the union will make up the difference if they don't fulfill the promise. Thousands of Guarantee Cards issued......not one signature.
                      Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 09-03-2007, 07:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wrong Joe...it can be changed. Unions and union pushers simply do not support it.

                        Come on now....yer getting close, just be honest. Here it is in the most simple terms.

                        1. Unions want to change the law so it's really, really easy for them to get people into a union.
                        2. Then they want to lock them into a contract for a long, long time.
                        3. Finally they want to make it really, really hard for them to get out of the union.
                        4. It's ALL about getting the employees money into the unions pocket.

                        Come one now...just admit it, I promise you'll feel better

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There are several differences between the Union Pushers and the Truth Gospels. Pushers have no product to sell
                          HUH ??? WHAT ??? Higher wages, better benefits, pensions, just cause protection (even in a right to work "for less" state). I guess if you consider all that "nothing" you may be correct, but that would require "business math" that would baffle even enron and haliburton execs.....

                          How 'bout we just agree that we will never agree. You keep contributing to the RNC and I'll keep giving to the DNC, and we'll point fingers at each other when something goes wrong.........THAT'S the American (political) way !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Not even a good try Joe. Try all you want to cover, mix-up, misdirect like all the other union pushers.

                            I did not say Act, I said law. The application of the law is defined by the NLRB who requires employers (by law) to give you union pushers the addresses of the employees before an election.

                            I sure hope you are not claiming that this is not the case as it would seriously hurt your credibility.
                            Last edited by staggerwingbeech; 08-23-2007, 10:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here you go Joe. Please come back and tell us all about it.

                              Excelsior Underwear, Inc. 156 NLRB 1236 (1966)

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X