Kalson: "Unions aren't perfect. Some have failed to recognize modern realities and have held onto traditional practices that hurt the businesses that employ them. But unions also are capable of working creatively with management to preserve jobs and industries."
I'm not sure that I have ever heard of an example of a union preserving jobs or industries outside of bankrutpcy (steel, airlines), and even then the costs of maintaining the union's legacy benefits have continued to hobble expansion and development of the businesses.
With card check, let's flip around Kalson's "scary scenario": After the cards are handed out, UNIONS use this time to get workers alone, lecture them on the evils of NOT BEING IN A UNION, grill them on their sentiments and demand to know how other people are voting.
How is this any different than what's going on now, other than the fact that you simply like this result better?
But that doesn't really provide any answer to the problem. Currently, unions don't have any opportunity to intimidate. With card check, I think that the ability to of unions to intimidate workers goes through the roof. Your co-workers will know your vote, the union will know where you live, the opportunity for intimidation in the actual casting of the vote (which is just signing the card) will be incredible.
Are you saying that if a union is a few votes short of certification, and it knows who won't sign the cards, that the union and pro-union employees won't be intimidating? I find that hard to believe.
In the end, this seems to be just swapping one intimidating scenario with another. Both are imperfect, but at least one of them allows employees to vote their conscience without anyone else but the individual worker knowing the results.
6 comments:
Great article!! Thanks for posting, I missed it over the weekend.
Kalson: "Unions aren't perfect. Some have failed to recognize modern realities and have held onto traditional practices that hurt the businesses that employ them. But unions also are capable of working creatively with management to preserve jobs and industries."
I'm not sure that I have ever heard of an example of a union preserving jobs or industries outside of bankrutpcy (steel, airlines), and even then the costs of maintaining the union's legacy benefits have continued to hobble expansion and development of the businesses.
With card check, let's flip around Kalson's "scary scenario": After the cards are handed out, UNIONS use this time to get workers alone, lecture them on the evils of NOT BEING IN A UNION, grill them on their sentiments and demand to know how other people are voting.
How is this any different than what's going on now, other than the fact that you simply like this result better?
and
P.C.
There were 29,000 ADJUDICATED cases of EMPLOYER intimidation LAST year with the department of Labor and ONLY 43 cases of union intimidation.
WHO IS THE BULLY ????
But that doesn't really provide any answer to the problem. Currently, unions don't have any opportunity to intimidate. With card check, I think that the ability to of unions to intimidate workers goes through the roof. Your co-workers will know your vote, the union will know where you live, the opportunity for intimidation in the actual casting of the vote (which is just signing the card) will be incredible.
Are you saying that if a union is a few votes short of certification, and it knows who won't sign the cards, that the union and pro-union employees won't be intimidating? I find that hard to believe.
In the end, this seems to be just swapping one intimidating scenario with another. Both are imperfect, but at least one of them allows employees to vote their conscience without anyone else but the individual worker knowing the results.
Love Sally's posters. She used to do the ones for "A Fair in the Park" in Sq. Hill / Pt. Breeze all the time, wonder if she still does.
*** Full disclosure;the huddler found this poster some where on google. Author unknown.
Post a Comment