RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:31 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:46 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 4623
NLRB Issues Rule to Speed up Union Organizing

The National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule on Friday aimed at modernizing and streamlining the union election process.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... g-27555675


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:43 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643
Well, this is some good news. The changes are minor, the system is STILL against workers. What gets me is how the right goes postal about this. Listen to this, from the article:

National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said the rule's "only purpose is to serve as a cudgel to bully employers into submission."

The only ones bullying workers into submission are the corporations.

These rule changes are minor, and, while they WILL help, it's still an uphill battle to organize.

Whether to unionize is a worker's decision. The company shouldn't be involved. They should have to be hands-off. We workers don't get to decide what groups the companies join, now, do we?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:52 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643
Further views on the NLRB ruling. Note: Lots of inside baseball. If you're not into it, click elsewhere, you'll be bored spitless.

1st, the speeding up of elections is important. You usually can't get an election for 45 days, which gives the company time to hold all kinds of captive audience meetings, one-on-one threatening meetings, and beat the employees down. Employers say the employees need that time to get information. No, it's just time for the companies to spread mis-information and threaten.

So, that's a good thing.

Second, most of you don't know, but when you file a petition, you have to have at least 30% of the employees. Even this is tough, because it's hard to find and get in touch with so many. At that point, the company is ordered by the NLRB to furnish what is called the "excelsior list":

Excelsior Underwear, Inc., was the first company that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) required to provide a list of the names and addresses of all the employees who were eligible to vote in a consent election. Now all employers are required to provide this list to the NLRB within 7 days after a consent election is ordered. The NLRB then provides the list to the union. In this manner, the union is given access to employees who will be the voters in the upcoming election. The NLRB views this as a way to ensure that employees are informed about the arguments both for and against electing a particular bargaining representative.

It just includes their name and home address. Now, they aren't required to give it as an electronic copy, a paper copy is all that's required. So, they never do. And they do things like spill coffee on it, smudge it, wad it up and flatten it out, and run it through a fax machine a dozen times, so it's almost unreadable.

Then, especially on a big campaign with thousands of employees, the union spends countless hours inputting the names and addresses in, and son of a gun, many of them for some reason turn out to be wrong.

So, requiring the list in Excel or some such would be big. Phone numbers are nice too.

Now, company emails. Not so sure about this. That's a new one. For one thing, it says that the worker must do anything on company email OFF the clock. So, what if the union sends an email blast out, and the employee simply opens it on company time, and gets fired for misuse of company time?

Other things - anything that happens in company email, the company can see, the company legally owns it. So, when you send mass emails, you have to have an opt-out system, so you can say you don't want to see them anymore. So, the company can tell people they're watching who accepts the emails or not. And again, if someone asks a question or gives info, again, the company sees it all.

I'm not sure how we'll handle this rule. That's a tough one.

All these rules become effective in April.

I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone has.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
As long as the company and the Union aren't lying or intimidating the workers shouldn't both sides be permitted to state their case as to why representation would be good or bad for the company and employees.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:40 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643
As long as the company and the Union aren't lying or intimidating the workers shouldn't both sides be permitted to state their case as to why representation would be good or bad for the company and employees.

Good question. My view is thus:

The companies can stage captive audience meeting that employees are required to attend. The can have one-on-one meetings with employees, where they can make illegal threats and promises with no witnesses. Employees MUST attend. Because they have the power of the paycheck, they are truly the only ones that really have the power to intimidate.

I mean, we have no power to intimidate. The employee doesn't even have to open the door and talk to us.

And this is about the Constitutional right to free association. Do you think your company should force themselves into your decision to join, say, the NRA or ACLU? I don't.

If the workers decide among themselves to form a union, that isn't the company's decision. It's their Constitutional right as Americans. I don't believe the company has any right to give their opinion.

As it is, the company opinion is forced upon the worker, where the union opinion may not be heard at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
Good question. My view is thus:

The companies can stage captive audience meeting that employees are required to attend. The can have one-on-one meetings with employees, where they can make illegal threats and promises with no witnesses. Employees MUST attend. Because they have the power of the paycheck, they are truly the only ones that really have the power to intimidate.

I mean, we have no power to intimidate. The employee doesn't even have to open the door and talk to us.

And this is about the Constitutional right to free association. Do you think your company should force themselves into your decision to join, say, the NRA or ACLU? I don't.

If the workers decide among themselves to form a union, that isn't the company's decision. It's their Constitutional right as Americans. I don't believe the company has any right to give their opinion.

As it is, the company opinion is forced upon the worker, where the union opinion may not be heard at all.


While the Union won't lie to the workers they will paint a best case scenario rosey picture. The workers should get a complete and truthful picture about what steps the company will take if the workers choose a Union.
The same should be true of companies that already have a Union who are negotiating a new contract. My brother just retired from a Union print shop in NE Ohio. The last contact they got prior to his retiring raised the rate for the machine he ran quite a bit. It was already the highest paying machine they had and there were only a few workers qualified to run it. 90 days after the new contract they disassembled the machine and shipped it to a non-union facility in Louisiana.
The machine my brother used his seniority to bump into paid less than he was getting than before the old contract. The guy he bumped, bumped the guy on second shift, the second shift guy bumped the third shift guy, the third shift guy lost his job.
So while the company should not be permitted to lie under any circumstance the workers should be shown the entire picture.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:39 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643

While the Union won't lie to the workers they will paint a best case scenario rosey picture. The workers should get a complete and truthful picture about what steps the company will take if the workers choose a Union.
The same should be true of companies that already have a Union who are negotiating a new contract. My brother just retired from a Union print shop in NE Ohio. The last contact they got prior to his retiring raised the rate for the machine he ran quite a bit. It was already the highest paying machine they had and there were only a few workers qualified to run it. 90 days after the new contract they disassembled the machine and shipped it to a non-union facility in Louisiana.
The machine my brother used his seniority to bump into paid less than he was getting than before the old contract. The guy he bumped, bumped the guy on second shift, the second shift guy bumped the third shift guy, the third shift guy lost his job.
So while the company should not be permitted to lie under any circumstance the workers should be shown the entire picture.

No, glen, we don't lie. We don't make promises. We say everything is subject to bargaining. What we DO say is that you would now have a voice and a vote. We can also point out how union workers DO make better wages and benefits than non-union workers. We can also point out how other workers that unionized did.

Companies make illegal threats, and the fire pro-union workers.

Here's something you should agree with: Since the union can't speak to every worker - if a worker says "I don't want to talk to you" we leave - and we can't talk to workers on company time, then the company should be banned from having captive audience meetings and one-on-one meetings. If they want to set up a website or put a flyer on a bulletin board, fine.

But to me, it's the worker's organization. Does the company ask for the worker's view as to whether they should join the Chamber of Commerce or what professional organizations their managers should join?

Because it works both ways, glen.

And as to your other point, it's obvious that the company was at fault there. Shady dealing - "sure we'll give these folks a BIG raise!" knowing that they are phasing out the machines.

That's the fault of the company, not the union. Not sure how you can legislate to make companies honest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:58 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 14383
No, glen, we don't lie. We don't make promises. We say everything is subject to bargaining. What we DO say is that you would now have a voice and a vote. We can also point out how union workers DO make better wages and benefits than non-union workers. We can also point out how other workers that unionized did.

Companies make illegal threats, and the fire pro-union workers.

Here's something you should agree with: Since the union can't speak to every worker - if a worker says "I don't want to talk to you" we leave - and we can't talk to workers on company time, then the company should be banned from having captive audience meetings and one-on-one meetings. If they want to set up a website or put a flyer on a bulletin board, fine.

But to me, it's the worker's organization. Does the company ask for the worker's view as to whether they should join the Chamber of Commerce or what professional organizations their managers should join?

Because it works both ways, glen.

And as to your other point, it's obvious that the company was at fault there. Shady dealing - "sure we'll give these folks a BIG raise!" knowing that they are phasing out the machines.

That's the fault of the company, not the union. Not sure how you can legislate to make companies honest.


The company should be banned from having captive meetings, unless the workers are paid for attending those meetings. There is no doubt the current rules are slanted way to much in the companies favor. But, the Union does put forth a best case argument.
For example,
brothers case, had the workers known that job would be leaving they would have asked the pay rate to remain what it was. Instead the Union fought for and got the raise, my brother ended up making less money and some workers lost their job.

_________________
If you could combine Bill C's skill with Obama's morals you would have the perfect President. One just like Ronald Reagan.


Last edited by glenfs on Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:11 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643

The company should be banned from having captive meetings, unless the workers are paid for attending those meetings.

Oh, they're paid, but that shouldn't matter. The company shouldn't be allowed to force their view upon their workers. It's the worker's choice. Again, the worker's aren't asked what organizations the companies join.
Quote:
There is no doubt the current rules are slanted way to much in the companies favor. But, the Union does put forth a best case argument.
In my brothers case, had the workers known that job would be leaving they would have asked the pay rate to remain what it was. Instead the Union fought for and got the raise, my brother ended up making less money and some workers lost their job.

Sorry, but you've got it backwards. I'm quite sure the union had no idea that the job would be leaving, either. Companies don't tell unions that unless it's in their best interest to do. The company simply acted dishonestly, and gave the union the big raises on the jobs they knew were going away.

That's the COMPANY, not the union, that's to blame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 7339
If conservatives support business ...
and progressives support workers.

WTF are we talking about if one wins? And the other not?

Pure bullshit.

Societies die playing a zero sum game.

_________________
"To Be Is to Do" - Plato
"To Do Is to Be" - Socrates
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do" - Sinatra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:47 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 32643
If conservatives support business ...
and progressives support workers.

WTF are we talking about if one wins? And the other not?

Pure bullshit.

Societies die playing a zero sum game.

It is possible to have a company and workforce that works together. It does happen. But a partnership takes both sides. It only takes one side declaring war. When they do, one must fight back. If you're the among workers caught in that scenario, when a company declares war on you, it is life and death, not bullshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:59 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 4623
Appeals court upholds labor union election rule

A federal court of appeals on Friday upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) controversial rule to speed up union elections.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... ction-rule


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group