Arkansas Blog

Let's see...

Union organizer presents me a card to sign my name to in front of my co-workers.

I might not be interested in seeing part of my paycheck go to an organization which, shall we say, might spend it on commercials for political candidates I don't support.

But if I don't sign it, and my shop goes union, everyone there knows I didn't support it. I wonder how I will get treated by my co-workers in the future.

Gee, what should I do?

I wish I had someway to make a choice without everyone knowing about it, kind of like when I go to the polling place.

However, Mr. Pryor, along with Messrs. Berry, Ross and Snyder, took away that choice. Now I have to fear how my co-workers will react to whether or not I sign a piece of paper that I might not want to.

No problem there...

Max, you've appear to have never lived in a town where union thugs fire bullets into homes of management or scabs. Never been where scabs are dragged out of their cars and beaten (hospitalized in critical condition) for trying to cross a picket. Never been where local grocers and hardware stores are threatened physically and economically if they don't grant unlimited trade credit to striking workers to subsidize their living during a strike...

Unions have played an important role in the economic balance of power. They *helped* right some workplace wrongs in this country. But they are far from benign, much less benevolent. Oppression can come from any power, including a mob.

ARK. BLOG: Actually, I worked in a tough union town and am well aware of the excesses of which organized labor is capable. But the balance of power has swung dramatically and is reflected in membership rolls. I have also been involved in an organizing campaign and I saw the ruthless use of management intimidation to keep people from voting for the union. Not to mention posing all sorts of obstacles to organization. This is a relatively benign response to an environment dramatically in favor of management, exceptions only proving the rule.

Protection!!!! What a joke. Ask the unionized workers at the former automotive supplier plants in Melbourn, Arkansas, Batesville, Arkanasas, Malvern, Arkansas, etc. etc. etc. that were represented by the UAW, what the union did to protect their jobs. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!
They paid thier union dues, went to their union meetings and got screwed in the end when the plants were closed. The unions are putting the automotive industry out of business. I don't think its funny to hear a union guy tell me that he spent most of his time at work on his union job making bird houses or wind chimes, because the union protected him. How protected is he now that he doesn't have a job. Mean time the Union Rep that was supposed to be protecting him was driving a new car provided by the union and making over 100K per year, (taking care of his employee) Thats the Union for ya!

What is reflected in membership roles is that 1) unions aren't nearly as relevant with current wage, hour and safety laws, 2) manufacturing jobs have flown oversees (in no small part thanks to union contracts), 3) union members got tired of seeing their dues support the union reps and organized crime, and 4) union members got tired of seeing their money spent to work against their own political candidates and issues.

In particular, the UAW/AFL-CIO sold out to the Democratic Party and the interest groups they depended on (environmental whackos, anti-gun nuts, homosexuals, and NARAL). Reagan resonated when he said the party left him. With Democrats holding less power, it made less and less sense for mainstream members to give money to support a losing cause that no longer represented their interests. The thugs are just looking for a way to get back some party "discipline" - just like the collectivists in communist China, always looking out for the "worker".

That would of course be "rolls", not "roles".

Hmmmm...very telling that our resident right-wingers jumped on this thread with the gusto of a hound dog. They've very nearly got all the unions across the nation on the ropes and they don't want anyone stepping in at the last minute, hooking up life supports. Let the unions die, they be screaming. Workers don't need no protecting since things are going so swimmingly for the working man in 2008.

Besides, them nasty union guys did bad things in 1936, 1948, 1966 and 1973! Our workers are protected best by no protection! Besides, everyone knows PROFITS are King! Don't want no foreign born swarthy union thugs knocking down King Profits by 1% while we ready our company for the big move off shore. Unions are out! But when the American workers learn to live in grass huts and work for 5 bucks a day, we might go back to giving you a scrawny frozen turkey at Christmas....if you're good...if you'll go quietly now. Git!

Amazing. Mark Pryor found a right worth defending.. Now if we could just get him to read the Constitution and his oath of office.. he might be worthy of a position on the Pine Bluff mosquito abatement board in twenty years.

DBI, I pay monthly vassal fees to my feudal lord Citi to retain small rights to a tract of land loosely called "my" home. I rent my car from a local credit union that will graciously transfer ownership to me about the time it is worth less than the cost to keep it running. In exchange, I have to pay the property taxes and insurance. I receive a check twice a month in exchange for submitting to "other duties as assigned". I have worked nearly 25 years and could probably make it two-four weeks "comfortably" without employment and maybe six months if I shut off everything not necessary to hydration, nutrition, and inhalation.

But I don't believe my financial security should be achieved at the end of a gun or a bat or a brick. And I'd like to be protected from those who want to "help" me if only I'll come around to seeing it their thuggish way. I'd much rather be threatened with the loss of my job. I was looking for one when I found this one.

What the UAW doesn't want the average UAW member to know in Arkansas. How many UAW members in Arkansas do you think bring down those dollars? I bet he's making over 100K now

Arkansas
Servicng Rep
United Auto Workers

2006 Salary Breakdown

$ 98,572 Total Earnings
Historical Salary Information
Year Salary % Raise Title
2006 $ 98,572 2.6% Servicng Rep
2005 $ 96,120 -1.8% Servicng Rep
2004 $ 97,851 9.6% Servicing Rep
2003 $ 89,269 - Servicng Rep

Having been a union member and knowing others who belong to various unions, it's hard to listen to the garbage spewed forth by Theodosious about the "thugs" in those unions. Unions are like any other organization. The majority (and it's large) follow the rules, help the workers the best they can, basically do the bargaining and provide legal services when needed, and seek to get better working conditions while helping the company find better ways to manage ther people and products.

This low level ad hominem attack does not equate with the facts but is just a smear campaign conducted by those with limited vision and understanding of the process. It is an old trick to blame unions for company failures when the primary reason for such happenings is that upper level management made poor decisions regarding their product and their market. Such failures spell trouble or doom to any company, whether union or right to work or other.

One could just as well say that anti-union people are being thuggish if you waned to and if they were vocally and physically adamant about it (which seems to be how Theio, Billary, et al are coming across). But, it is just as unsound logically as their position.

At the heart of the whole matter is management's fear of unions vs the worker's fear of abuse and unsafe working conditions. Management often claims that letting workers have the power to easily organize will result in reduced profits for the company or higher prices for the consumer. Studies done in states that allow more freedoms to unions show that this is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. There is an increase in productivity and profit. Do your homework. I reported on these same studies over a year ago.

There is no need to be Chicken Littles running around and screeching about the sky about to fall on our heads. Especially when it is contrary to the evidence of research. The real thugs are the one trying to pass off their lies and hatred of unions as factual when in fact it is mostly anecdotal and bears little resemblance to the truth.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I was getting tired of you pissing on my leg 'bout unions.

>>What the UAW doesn't want the average UAW member to know in Arkansas. How many UAW members in Arkansas do you think bring down those dollars? I bet he's making over 100K now<<

And this little poor Ma' and Pa' company named Wal-Mart only has a tiny budget of $3 to keep the unions from coming in and corrupting their employees. At least unions disclose what they spend standing up for the little guy!

Jake, if memory serves your union experience would be with a teachers union? Sorry if I've got that wrong. But I would say I'm unaware of much physical violence associated with the NEA or says the government employee's union. But the labor unions have been very different and my experience while possibly not typical is still far from anecdotal; it is real and personal.

Even with the teachers my mother long ago rejected the NEA. There was lots of peer pressure in the break room to join up.

The only thing I've heard about this legislation is the sign-up issue. Seems awfully narrow for federal legislation, so I'm guessing there's a lot more to the bill. If it does so much more good maybe the unions would amend out the provisions removing the protection of a private sign-up?

It still seems pretty simple to me that if secret ballot is so good for democracy then whether that is democratic government or union organization really doesn't matter. Privacy is privacy.

If they all follow the rules, Jake, then let them have a vote instead of an organizer handing over the card in front of his co-worker buddies over some beers at the bar.

Moreover, why would unions want a law which would let them force a collective-bargaining agreement to binding arbitration instead of letting the workers vote on it?

The card check bill does just that.

Also, the bill forces workers to a vote to disband the union instead of letting them sign a paper.

So, according to the unions, it is okay to NOT LET workers vote to create a union and NOT LET workers vote on a union contract, but it is okay to FORCE a vote to disband the union.

Definitely not a level playing field there, folks.

Max, guess I've never seen the other side. In a secret ballot, how does management intimidate a worker to vote against organizing?

According to Ogletreedeakins:

Organized Labor's Objectives

Unions' major objective has less to do with the form of voting ("secret ballot" versus "card check") than with limiting an employer's ability to communicate with employees about union representation and their right to make an informed choice. As stated by union witness-after-witness at the Subcommittee hearing and the prohibitively expensive, full-page union ads in newspapers across the country, unions want greater "access" to employees at work and want to silence the employer's voice in union organizing campaigns. The "card check" process authorized by H.R. 800 will enable unions to control the timing of an organizing campaign and to present a majority of signed cards to the NLRB before the employer has an opportunity to respond. Unions could achieve this same objective through a secret ballot vote if they are able to limit the time to only a week or less (i.e., "quickie elections") between filing an election petition with the NLRB and conducting the election. Thus, there are concerns that this is the unions' real strategy and the union lobbyists may falsely proclaim at some future point that this is a "compromise" to preserve the secret ballot.

From Workers World:

The "card-check" bill would demand that the National Labor Relations Board recognize a union once that union could show that more than 50 percent of the workers at a shop had signed cards asking for the union to represent them. Under the current reactionary anti-labor law, all that these cards win for the union is an election. If you read the propaganda from the Chambers of Commerce, bosses' trade journals and any of the rightist press that support every thought of the National Association of Manufacturers on this, you will find a strident defense of the "secret ballot." Such a union election and "secret ballot" at plants like the giant Smithfield hog slaughterhouse in North Carolina allow the bosses to fire workers who are the strongest union organizers, threaten to bring in the state against immigrant workers, bully and otherwise intimidate enough workers so that the union loses the election.

That's why anyone who is pro-labor and who wants to see unorganized workers win their own union to defend their rights should be for "card-check." It's why all the bosses were and are against it and why George Bush threatened to veto it. It's why every pro-business lobby in Washington-and that's 99 percent of the lobbies-urged the Republicans to fight the bill and demanded that the Democrats not put up the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight that could turn the debate in the Senate to a popular mobilization.

The Houston Chronicle

15 Nov 2006

Once the Democrats take control of Congress, expect to see legislation fairly quickly to boost the minimum wage, make student loans more affordable and require employers to permit union card checks.

Union card checks?

It's not exactly a front-burner issue for most folks. Or even understood by most.

But the easy method of labor organizing, which allows unions to collect the signatures of a majority of employees who say they want to be represented, is high on the agenda of organized labor, which has struggled for years to win workplace elections.

Under current law, unless a company agrees to accept signed cards, the National Labor Relations Board sets a date for an election, with the six-week campaign putting workers in the crossfire.

Workers can be forced to attend "captive audience meetings," during which officials focus on the dues employees will have to pay, what union leaders earn and characterize the union as an unnecessary third-party intervener.

Meanwhile, union leaders make home visits and buttonhole employees in parking lots and break rooms, hoping to convince them that joining the union is in their best interest.

"Workers in America have lost any effective right to organize unions," said Stewart Acuff, national organizing director for the AFL-CIO, which supports the card-check method.

He met this week with Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the likely next chairman of the House Education and the Work Force Committee, about taking quick action on the legislation.

"There is no effective sanction against employer threats, retaliation or termination of union leaders," Acuff said. He added that more than 20,000 workers a year for the past decade have been fired for trying to form unions or for participating in similar union activities.

There's another incentive for unions to want card checks - they win more often.

When it's a secret-ballot election, unions win only 54 percent of the time, said Mark Jodon, an employment lawyer with Littler Mendelson in Houston. But when there's a card check, unions get recognized more than 90 percent of the time.

"No wonder unions do not want elections, if they can avoid them," Jodon said.

It's me again. As I perused thru countless articles on this bill, most against it in my search engine, the argument boiled down to this:

Both sides claim bullying. Both sides said the other was lying. Anti-union statements about bullying were usually generic while pro-union statements about bullying were usually specific and referred to cases around the country. Anti-union folks say trust the NLRB whilst pro-union folks say that lately the NLRB is in bed with management.
Only one listed research supporting its contention and that one can be find when you click on my blue name. That was the UAW site.

All in all, it certainly seems like Chicken Little is in charge of the anti-union folks. It's worst case scenario and doom and gloom. Very little data or research to support their position but lots of opinion.

The bottom line is that it is probably true that Democrats are making good on their promises to workers and unions, Republicans are making good on their longtime support of management and stockholders. Union membership is at 7.4% and has been in decline for some time. Some say the blame rests on legal changes made by Republican administration; some say it is worker dissatisfaction with labor bosses and aims. Evidence suggests its more of the former but does include some of the latter.

The Bush administration has been notorious about packing the NLRB with people who are anti-union in both belief and action. President Bush's Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, is publicly hostile to labor unions and deaf to the needs of workers in general. It is likely that Bush will veto this bill if it does pass.

It was OK to change the rules to make unionizing difficult if not impossible. Using a tactic of fear and smear, union foes want to continue playing on their blatantly unlevel playing field where the referees are bribed, the announcers are biased, the reporting is by homers, and your coaches and fans are not even allowed inside for the competition. Don't talk about level playing field when the current one is already tilted heavily in management's favor, regulated by a rigged NLRB, and leaves a worker trying to organize defenseless if an employer wishes to get rid of them.

Oh well......you'll hear about it again in the fall at election time (unless the economy collapses or the war gets hot again).

When an employer files an appeal to stop an election under the National Labor Relations Act, it can drag the process on for months before there is an election. All time the employer uses to come up with reasons to fire and reassign employees suspected to back a union.

Then even if a union is formed, if the employer wants to fight it, he can take it before the National Labor Relations Board that is stacked with Bush cronies. Employers who oppose the Employee Free Choice Act simply don't trust a majority of their workers to make an informed decision.

Jake,

If unions have a right to coerce, then owners should have a right to explain why organizing isn't a good idea.

I have friends who are career government workers who are harassed on a daily basis to join a union. Even after saying no via email, text, phone and in person, the local agitator persists in bothering my friends during the work day, everyday.

This is the kind of crap that would go on during a card check organizing push.

When does no not mean no? When a union hack is looking for a pay raise.

We can cite anecdotal evidence from here to eternity. I'm personally familiar with the anti-union activities of St Vincents Hospital. It's as bad as one can imagine. So, all that does is make for interesting stories. It doesn't present the big picture.

The union side of the picture can tell you of many times when a yes doesn't mean a yes. Read the article I highlighted in blue earlier. They cover that topic.

Again, what I'm getting from you is lacking quantifiable FACTS!! I'm getting a smorgabord of opinions, name-calling, seasoned with fear and smear. If you look closer at some of the articles on your side of the fence, you'll find much better arguments to use in this debate. If I can see them, surely you can go back and find them also. Too much of your comments are inflammatory and derogatory in nature about unions. I see almost no research to back your statements. That said, it doesn't mean some of your argument lacks merit. It just lacks conclusive proof.

You can have the floor for the remainder of the evening on this topic since I'm just plain bushed from my labors over the past few days. The wind has gone out of my sails and I need to remain in the harbor for awhile. Thanks for the arguments and good luck as you continue researching this topic. I find that is almost as fun doing background as it is engaging others in debate about this topic or others. I try to always look at something from both sides and see if anyone has some hard data or reliable research to chew on. This topic was unique in that I've never seen a stance (the anti-union one in this case) repeated almost verbatim from one article to the next as I pulled up each new site. It was odd.

I don't care to argue with why or why not but unions are there to keep companies from mistreating it's employees. Lies were told about the unions because those in management, who own nothing of the company but worked for the company just like the union workers do, wanted to make a name for themselves and to get themselves more pay.
A man that is crazy may not want to be represented by a union. That is his business.
It is a very small thing for the union to take my dues to pay for a candidate running for office that would represent me/us when legislation came up concerning the workplace. I still had the right to vote for the candidate I wanted to be elected even if it was different from who the union supported. That how Reagan got elected. He was a liar, too. You talk about being trickey dickey, that Reagan was just that.... Damn union buster is all he was.
Republicans are all union buster I think. Like snakes in the grass.

There ya go, Jake. Chas is on *your* side. Guess Red and I are done.

( I know, another ad hominem, but dang they're emotionally effective - if logically flawed...)

I understand Theo. Ol' chasv sounds too much like your own arguments for me to appreciate his emotional efficacy. I'll stick to the facts.

As to your question regarding the vote procedure, it was addressed in the "click on my blue name" statement I made several hours ago. It's why I recommended to do your homework and spend some time with a search engine looking over the various comments from both sides of the issue. It tends to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The paucity of research versus the proliferation of emotional branding on his issue is as unequal as it can be. Like I said, I ran across little to back up anyone's arguments other than fear & smear tactics. Only UAW cited university studies in defenseof their positions and they likewise gave specific examples to support their case. There was a lot of depth to their arguments. It may have been out there, but I could find no comparable study and argument from the anti-union side.

But, as you stated: we are susceptible to emotional branding and can be easily manipulated by hot button words and phrases. Facts don't win hearts as much as fables and fiction do. It is a human flaw that many have preyed upon since the beginning of time. It may be emotionally effective but it is not intellectually honest.