The union to which I belong, the Service Employees International Union - the notorious SEIU, is a prime example of the value – or lack thereof – of modern unions, at least big unions.
As a government employee, I was pressured into joining the union through continuous “random meetings” with union leadership until I finally relented. In my observation, the union does very little to help the employees of this government entity. The union reps, with one exception, create hostility in the workplace between staff and management. The lone exception faced a recent recall election. He is the only union rep with whom management is willing to discuss anything. The rep is skilled in business and understands both sides of the relationship between workers and employers.
But, the SEIU ensured Barak Obama won the Nevada primaries.
It is painfully obvious that the SEIU is first a political organization, then a union. So seems to be the case of every large union. AFL-CIO, Teamsters, UAW; the list goes on.
When I displayed a McCain/Palin bumper sticker, I was approached by my union reps who asked “what are you doing?” When the union called me at home asking that I donate to the Obama campaign and I said that I was voting for McCain I was cursed at before the phone was slammed in my ear.
Workers rights! Protect the workers! Right, when the SEIU actually starts working on labor issues, perhaps then the value of the union will return.
Unions are created to protect workers and unions are created to save employers from having to deal one-on-one with hundreds or thousands of employees. In an ideal world, when unions sit with employers and rational discussions about business take place, unions are valuable to all parties.
Eliminating secret ballots would change the structure of business forcing employers to be wary, if not openly hostile, to workers.
Skip the union label, just make it a tatoo.
T Peterson
of NV
@
Jul 09, 2009 11:22:41 AM
EFCA Article Missing Key Facts
Liz Wolgemuth left out a few key points about the deceptively-titled Employee Free Choice Act. When I read her description of the Economic Policy Institute as “progressive” (rather than union-funded), I smelled some bias.
Repeating the claim that U.S. workplace elections confirmed my suspicions. In 2008, unions won nearly two-thirds of secret ballot elections, the highest win rate since the 1950s and a four percent increase from the previous year. Statements of widespread acts of retaliation against employees are wildly inaccurate. A recent analysis of data from the National Labor Relations Board found less than four percent of union organizing campaigns result in unlawful termination.
The deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act eviscerates democracy in the workplace. Workers effectively lose their right to a secret ballot. Under the binding arbitration terms in the legislation, they also would lose their vote to ratify contracts. Given these costs, Congress should reject this hijacking of workplace rights.
Rick Berman
of DC
@
Jun 29, 2009 12:22:10 PM
EFCA
To respond to those brilliant comments regarding intimidation by the employer; The employer controls access to the union organizers, monitors employees that discuss, distribute, or support union organization, and mandates meetings that are just about as factual as Michael McNally's statements.
From personal experience I have observed that Unions rarely run an election unless they know that the workers are on-board. They withdraw, regroup, and try again.
The Union workers drive the wage / benefits that all workers share. The Union workers have a collective bargaining agreement with the employer that enables greivances to overturn employers decisions / actions about the work-force or individual workers.
The Union workers have some power within the work-site that demands the respect of the employer. When the hospital system that I work at, demanded last November 2008, that all workers
exepend 10 days of PTO, (combination of sick leave / vacation / holiday pay) by the 4th of January 2009, the Union stepped in, filed a grievance on behalf of all workers, and won the restoration of the PTO used. It was unfortunate, that only the Union workers regained their PTO, the non-contracuals did not.
The "secret ballot", has not worked. The NLRB has been pro-business, and when the employer is found to be in violation or the NLRA, their "damages", are minimal. How concerned would you yourself be if you knew that a Unfair Labor finding would cost you, the employer, a posting of having violated the NLRA on a public board, within the work site?
The Employee Free Choice Act will enable workers to regain respect on the work-site, increase their wages / benefits, and enhance all workers.
thanks for reading this, I hope that you will support the EFCA.
Art
William A. Lee
of OR
@
Jun 26, 2009 12:49:03 PM
EFCA
Where's the beef? This article is nothing but fluff...
How does ANYONE try to justify removing a secret ballot as somehow BETTER?
G Pabich
of TX
@
Jun 25, 2009 11:26:49 AM
5 Things to Know About the Employee Free Choice Act
A very disappointing one sided article in that the author clearly only repeats the unions' "talking points" and used very questionable studies. The fact is that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is a big supporter of secret ballot election process because it knows from past experience that union organizers do intimidate employees to sign cards. The NLRB's own studies indicate that in only about 2% of all NLRB supervised secret ballot elections do employers fire union sympathizers. (The reason is simple: the last thing an employer wants to do is fire anyone during an union organizing campaign because that will galvanize the employees towards the union.) In the past 5 years unions have won 67% of all NLRB supervised secret ballot elections and more than half of all elections over the past 20 years. Finally, all the studies that purport that union employees make more than non-union employees are seriously flawed in that they do not take into account regional cost of living differences. The fact is that union vs. nonunion wages are very close to one another in most geographic areas which reflects that it's the market place that determines wages and not unions. EFCA is being pushed forward by the unions simply t0 increase union membership which, in turn, increases unions' revenues (aka - dues).
Michael McNally
of NY
@
Jun 25, 2009 10:21:21 AM
EFCA
A fair article in so much as not taking sides. However, the author simply took the rhetoric from both sides and incorporated it into this article, without bothering to do a little work to find out how union elections really work today, and what employers do or do not do to win elections.
Next time i'd suggest doing some research and talk to employees who went through an organizing drive to find out why they did or didn't vote for the union. Was it employer intimidation? The truth is, employers who use intimidation tactics in a secret-ballot election usually lose. That's why they have secret-ballot elections!
T Peterson of NV @ Jul 09, 2009 11:22:41 AM
Rick Berman of DC @ Jun 29, 2009 12:22:10 PM
William A. Lee of OR @ Jun 26, 2009 12:49:03 PM
G Pabich of TX @ Jun 25, 2009 11:26:49 AM
Michael McNally of NY @ Jun 25, 2009 10:21:21 AM
Joe of NJ @ Jun 25, 2009 10:05:53 AM
Back to article