Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Amway Signs Letter To Congress Opposing Union Bill
#1
Wal-Mart, APS, Microchip join opposition union bill

Phoenix Business Journal - by Mike Sunnucks

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Arizona Public Service Co., Microchip Technology Inc. and Phoenix Children’s Hospital are among businesses opposing federal legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.

The quartet are among 3,100 businesses nationwide that signed a May 14. U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter to Congress opposing the Employee Free Choice Act (HR 1409).

The bill, backed President Barack Obama, would allow unions to organize workers in some cases without the usual election. Instead, a majority of employees would have to sign authorization cards.

Unions say employers bully workers into voting against organizing. Opponents say the change would boost union efforts and drive up costs with unions pressuring workers to sign up.

Other businesses signing the U.S. Chamber letter include Motorola, Southwest Gas, Amway Corp., Coca-Cola Bottling, Banner Health, Centex Homes, Gordon Biersch Restaurants, Tyson Foods and Waste Management Inc.

Arizona business groups, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, also oppose card check.


http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stori...ily64.html

This bill would take away the rights of workers to have their ballots be kept secret when voting for or against a union.
 Reply
#2
MichMan Wrote:This bill would take away the rights of workers to have their ballots be kept secret when voting for or against a union.


I haven't really studied up on this, but from reading the contrasting views presented on Wikipedia , your characterisation seems a little simplistic. It appears one could also say -

Quote:This bill would give workers the right to have their ballots kept secret from their employer when voting for or against a union
 Reply
#3
Secret ballots are one cornerstone of a free election process in any democracy.

Even socialists/communists like Castro, Chavez and Mugabee let people vote on a secret ballot. Why take that away from the American workers?
 Reply
#4
This legislation would take away a secret ballot, not give the employees any more right to one. The union would only need the signed cards to get the union in, not a successful vote. What that means is that they can give the cards out and either have union members or other employees present and watching to see if you sign the card or not. Could be a little intimidating, actually more than a little. This is downright wrong!
 Reply
#5
BTW, there have been many failed attempts to unionize Amway.

And when Amway built their hotels in downtown Grand Rapids, they made a special point to hire only non-unionized construction workers.

The bottom line is that they have treated their employees fairly over the years and have not needed a union.
 Reply
#6
I agree ballots should be secret, but from what I gather this bill stupidly just exchanges the non-secrecy! Right now it's non-secret with the employer able to know, with the change it's non-secret with other employees able to know.

either wasy is stupid.

As for the Amway comment - if only all companies were as great as Amway! In such an ideal world there'd be no unions because there would be no need for them. Alas, we don't live in such a world.
 Reply
#7
ibofightback Wrote:I agree ballots should be secret, but from what I gather this bill stupidly just exchanges the non-secrecy! Right now it's non-secret with the employer able to know, with the change it's non-secret with other employees able to know.

either wasy is stupid.

As for the Amway comment - if only all companies were as great as Amway! In such an ideal world there'd be no unions because there would be no need for them. Alas, we don't live in such a world.


The current law says if 30% of employees sign a card saying they would like a union the NLRB will order a secret ballot of the employees (the way employees vote is kept secret from both the union and the company), and if over 50% vote yes then the union will be accepted. If 50% or more sign the cards the company is allowed to accept the union without the vote. Also, if the company has been found to have engaged in unfair against the union or its supporters the NRLB can force the company to accept the union without a vote if more than 50% of the cards were signed.

The proposed change would force companies to accept the union without any secret ballot if more than 50% of the cards were signed. Basically this turns the signing cards into the vote. This is a problem because the cards aren't required to be signed in private. The union reps and supporters can put the card in front of an employee and ask them to sign it right there on the spot. This allows for major intimidation by the union and its supporters and takes the right to a secret ballot completely away from the employees.
 Reply
#8
That wasn't the impression I got from the wikipedia article.

Either way, we're in agreement ballots should be secret.
 Reply
#9
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check</a><!-- m -->

This article better explains what is current law, what is proposed, and what each side feels about both ways.
 Reply
#10
Seems to me the problem is in how to decide whether to have a vote ... the "vote to have a vote", or card check.

old system
-------------
30%-50 of employees, in a non-secret "vote to have a vote", say they want a union -> secret ballot occurs
>50% of employees, in a non-secret "vote to have a vote", say they want a union -> automatic union if employer agrees, or secret ballot

proposed system
---------------------
30%-50% of employees, in a non-secret "vote to have a vote", say they want a union -> secret ballot occurs
>50% of employees, in a non-secret "vote to have a vote", say they want a union -> automatic union

If I get this right ...

Supporters of the change feel that companies may intimidate people into voting "no" (ie not voting) in the non-secret "vote to have a vote", through potential punative action, but that can be mitigated by automatic unionization if 50%+1 say yes.

Opponents of the change feel that Unions may intimidate people into voting yes in the non-secret "vote to have a vote", but in the current system they can at least show their "true" feelings in a secret ballot to follow.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)