The City Wire of Fort Smith, Arkansas, published a piece giving a former union leader space to announce that he opposes the elimination of the secret ballot that is the card check feature of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).
His reasoning is spot on with why card check is a bad idea that will materially hurt American workers.
And then there is Neal Catlett, a former president of the union representing workers at Whirlpool’s Fort Smith plant who has more than 20 years of leadership experience in the local union.
Catlett, now retired from Whirlpool, opposes card check. He told The City Wire that he has seen plenty of “nonsense” among Whirlpool leaders and union leaders to know that anything other than a secret ballot will lead to intimidation, coercion and corruption on all sides.
“I strongly support secret ballots. Period. It doesn’t matter at what level, whether it is voting for a union or the president or your congressman,” Catlett said. “Your ideas should be personal as to if you want a union or don’t want a union.”
Catlett doesn’t argue with union leaders who say the current labor rules make it too tough and are tilted in the favor of business. But he says card check is the wrong way to create a more level playing field. And he also says unions use the same coercion and intimidation used by business owners.
“Doing away with the secret ballot is not good for the unions. It’s not good for any business. … Open voting creates an atmosphere of intimidation. It creates an atmosphere where people will use your opinion against you. I’ve seen the threats and I’ve actually seen the physical conflict, if you know what I mean, come from the business side and from the union side,” Catlett said. “I just don’t see how any process that is not private will protect the worker.”
Right from the mouth of a former union boss and right on. Union thugs will be unleashed by this bill. It needs to be torpedoed.
There’s still much work ahead to defeat this un-American and anti-democratic law.
Neil Stevens
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Daniel Horowitz
Jake Walker
Senator Lamar Alexander
arel Thursday, March 12th at 7:13AM EST (link)was booed; when he called it the Employee No Free Choic Act as it was introduced by Senator Tom Harkin, by possible union hecklers. Now if these union workers will heckle and boo Senators just think how they will treat those who don’t want to be unionized.
Kudos to Senator Lamar Alexander.
Arel
Having worked for a union before...
weave (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:12AM EST (link)I spent a short bit of my life working for a union (as a paid picketer, more details in my first and only diary entry) and I can tell you those who work for unions as organizers and their jobs are to live out of hotels and work on organizing a site are under tremendous pressure to produce a win for the union.
As with any group of people, there are good folks and disreputable ones. It’s the latter group we all need to worry about.
I’ve read numerous stories on Media Matters (yes, I read all sides on issues) that state that if employees want a secret ballot election, they still have that option and this law would not change that. The employees could choose whether or not to let it be decided by cards or ballot. Oh really? And how is the intent of the employees desire to have a secret ballot or cards be determined? By a secret ballot asking whether they want a secret ballot? I don’t get how that intent could be determined. A random poll? Pass around cards asking “Do you want a secret ballot?” Take a showing of hands in a company-wide meeting?
It’s a ridiculous defense of Card Check.
There is no provision in EFCA for a ballot at all
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:36AM EST (link)if the union presents a majority of interest cards! The existing standard of having an election with a 30% showing remains in place but even under current law a union would almost never petition for an election with only 30%.
In Vino Veritas
True
weave (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:39AM EST (link)When I worked for the UFCW the standard was 50% before they’d go to the NLRB, even though 30% was all that was needed. Their logic was that if interested employees couldn’t collect more than 50%, then the chances of a them winning an election was so low it wasn’t worth the resources.
I have some of their literature that claims one can demand a secret ballot
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:47AM EST (link)with cards signed by 30%. This is their supposed refutation that the secret ballot is not being eliminated by the new law. Technically true, but the fact is that the absolute right to a secret ballot is eliminated and given the dynamics of organization drives, those opposing are not going to be the ones motivated to go get cards checked for a secret ballot. The very act of getting the cards checked reveals their desire.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
A lie's better 'n the truth if you can get somebody to beleive it.
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:53AM EST (link)See, e.g., the last Presidential election.
In Vino Veritas
I just read all 4 versions of EFCA and nowhere does it allow for the 30% card check for secret ballot. Now, as to existing NLRB Act
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 11:20AM EST (link)29 U.S. Code § 159 (e). appears to only apply in very limited circumstances, so yes, The supporters of this law are lying.
Am I right about the below existing law being very limited?
(e) [Secret ballot; limitation of elections] (1) Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title], of a petition alleging they desire that such authorization be rescinded, the Board shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit and certify the results thereof to such labor organization and to the employer.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
It's a combination of the NLRA and NLRB regs.
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 11:35AM EST (link)Section 159 or using the better known old numbering, Section 9(c)(1) says that the NLRB will have an election if a “substantial number” of employees show interest and the employer “declines to recognize their representative.” The determination that 30% constituted “substantial” is a creature of Board regulation.
What your’re citing to is the process for a decertification petition where 30% or more challenge the certification of an incumbent union.
So, under current law, an employer COULD agree to recognition only on a showing of 30%, but that recognition would be subject to challenge by an intervening union or by any employees petitioning to intervene to force an election. There really isn’t a definition of a union in the law, so any number of employees acting in concert can claim the rights that inhere to a union under the law.
It’s been a long time since I had to think about stuff like this under the federal law and I had to dust off my trusty “The Developing Labor Law.” Hardin and Higgins, Editors, 4th Ed.
In Vino Veritas
Is there any law that requires a secret ballot election to unionize when
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 11:43AM EST (link)30% sign cards demanding same?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I almost started my QuickBooks Timer, GC:
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 12:06PM EST (link)Sect. 159 of the Act or under the old system Section 9(c)(1)(B) “… If the Board finds upon the record of such a hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.”
The hearing it speaks of would consider whether there was a substantial showing of interest and whether the bargaining unit was appropriate. There doesn’t have to be a hearing if nobody objects to the list of eleigible employees (Excelsior List) or nobody objects to the unit definition (Malinkrodt Chemical is the case that sets out the definition criteria). If there’s no objection, rarely the case, the Board or more likely the regional NLRB head will just certfy the petition, acknowledge that there is a sufficient showing and thus a question of representation, and then order an election, which the NLRB will conduct.
Damn, I miss having a bunch of staff that I can just yell to, “Give me a memo on the factual and legal predicates of an election under the NLRA.” This doing it yourself stuff is almost work, but that’s the way I kept them honest; they knew I COULD do it.
In Vino Veritas
The boilerplate language of an interest card ALWAYS designates the unio
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 9:03AM EST (link)as the undersigned employee’s sole and exclusive representative for all matters relating to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. Some go on to also commit the employee to be a member of the union and to pay dues. That last piece is important in “right to work” states in which dues paying cannot be compelled as a condition of continued employment but so-called maintenance of membership agreements are legal. In a maintenance of membership agreement, the employer and the union agree that all employees who are members of the union at the time the contract is effective are obligated to remain members of the union for the duration of the contract.
In the public sector where many bargaining laws authorize dues checkoff even without a contract, interest cards also often include a due checkoff authorization.
In Vino Veritas
It is said that the world of business is notorious for not knowing who its friends are.
Martin Knight (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 10:40AM EST (link)If this were not true, they would be mounting a massive PR push, with millions of dollars in ad buys aimed directly at all workers opposing this as not just as assault on business and employment, but as an attack on democracy.
The big businesses and the trade associations
Achance (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 10:50AM EST (link)don’t care about this so long as they can be assured that their competitors will be organized. They’ll put up with the unions so long as they don’t get crossthreaded with the government.
Interestingly, the NAM and the CoC led the charge to amend the National Labor Relations Act after WWII. That resulted in the 1948 Taft-Hartley Amendments, for which organized labor has never forgiven the NAM, the CoC, or the Republican Party.
In Vino Veritas