Comments on: Former Union Leader Opposes Card Check Bill

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:06:35 +0000

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.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:43:54 +0000

30% sign cards demanding same?

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:35:58 +0000

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.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:20:20 +0000

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.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:50:05 +0000

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.

By: Martin Knight

Martin Knight — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:40:27 +0000

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.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:03:19 +0000

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.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:53:36 +0000

See, e.g., the last Presidential election.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:47:18 +0000

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.

By: weave

weave — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:39:18 +0000

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.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:36:00 +0000

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%.

By: weave

weave — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:12:59 +0000

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.

By: arel

arel — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:13:27 +0000

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.