Here's another. (4.00 / 3)

Shortly following a victorious union election, Stericycle fired two workers in Oakland, California, for exposing the company's anti-union tactics. Juan Vasquez and Carlos Reyes were fired soon after testifying before the Oakland Office of the National Labor Relations Board regarding the company's anti-worker actions.

http://www.teamster.org/

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 14:54:50 PM UTC

Republican vote (0.00 / 0)

This is a re-run of the 2007 vote in the Senate on HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.  In that case we got every Democratic vote and Arlen Specter crossed over (Tim Johnson did not vote because of his illness).  If that holds, we break cloture (once Al Franken is sworn in).

Toomey's prospective run is really important here.  The "extra" conservative who declared is also important.  Two right wing rivals would probably clinch for Specter; one (if Toomey) might kill him off.

The problem for Specter on this may be money.  Will the Chamber of Commerce and Wal-Mart continue to fund those inescapable and clumsy ads from last cycle?  Will Wal-Mart intimidate one of the Arkansas Democrats or Landrieu?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:34:59 PM UTC

NLRB (4.00 / 5)

I worked as an NLRB field agent a few years ago. The rank and file of the agency are really dedicated civil servants who really want to make sure workers get a fair shake if they want a union; between the appointed Board and right-wing legislation like Taft-Hartley and others, they're working with their hands tied behind their backs.

It's also time that we redefine the boundaries of who can and can't form a union. Particularly in higher education, we're now running into situations where unions can be decertified depending on how much say faculty members have in the actual running of the university (e.g. through faculty senates, joint executive committees, etc.). So as soon as the vision of true workplace democracy seems in reach, the rug is pulled out from under.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

---

by: Liberaltarian @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:48:00 PM UTC

EFCA is not the way (0.00 / 0)

first...the union's claim of significant increases (hundreds of thousands just this past year alone) contridicts their position that the union's can't get a fair shake.  The teamsters have won 58% of their elections.  The SEIU have organized nearly one million new workers.  

second...while I completely agree that every people has an undiniable right to join a union, people should have an equal right not to join one.  is there inimidation by management...YES.   is there inimidation by the unions...YES.  giving the unions easier access and ability to itimidate and cooerce employees who otherwise might not want to join a union is not the answer.  

this is not an anti union rant.  this is a response to a piece of legislation that if you read it very carefully is entirely one sided.  This is what has set off companies all across the country.  

My father was a longshoreman for 38 years out of the port of NY.  I grew up in strong union household and walked the picket lines with my dad.   This was our choice and this is what we wanted to do.  I have a close friend who I went to school with and his name is Rod Carter.  for those of you who don't know Rod Carter, he played football for the Universit of Miami.  In 1989, he was part of the National Championship Team.  After a short career, he began driving for UPS. The following is quote from an editorial...

"Carter, a linebacker for the 1989 University of Miami Hurricanes and former 10th round draft choice of the Dallas Cowboys, continued to work during the strike in order to support his family, despite the objections of union officials.

After Rod Carter appeared on the evening news to explain why he did not support the strike, he received a threatening phone call at his home. Phone records proved that the phone call was placed from the house of the Teamsters Local 769 president Anthony Cannestro, Sr.

The next day, a group of union militants tracked Carter down on his delivery route, drew him out of his UPS truck, and severely beat and stabbed him. After the bloody attack but before any arrests, at least one assailant was returned to the picket line to continue participating in strike activities. Union officials later used union funds to bail out the assailants and helped to line up legal representation (as had been promised in advance of the violation)."  

for most readers, this would be just another story.  But I know this man to be a decent human being who loves his family.  I know the pain and suffering he endured thinking he was going to die during this attack.  The quote does not mention how the attackers were saying "die nigger die".  

I realize that not all union behave this way and most union families are hardworking people. however, there should be no excuse for intolerance of people who have opposing views to unionization.  if you want to joing a union then you should have every right to do so.  if you don't your wishes sould be respected.  

I do not believe that the provisions of EFCA with open card check will preserve and respect the right of the individual as it will let union officials know immediately who and is not for the union.  We should tighten up the existing laws and penalties for employers who intimidate or harrass employees but we should not take away the basic right of secretly voting.  for those of you who will counter with "EFCA does not eliminate the vote"...the response is your right to a point....but the likelyhood of a vote after 50% + 1 of the cards being signed are slight to none.  So in essence, it is dissinfranchising the remaining group who did not have an opportunity for opposition.  it also takes away the ability for the person who was intimidated to sign a card from changing their minds secretly.  This is not the American way.  

---

by: rmoltaban @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 16:36:35 PM UTC

The story is sad and disappointing but it (4.00 / 1)

is not a fair way to put down the union movement.  As long as human beings are involved, there will be some bad eggs.  That's reality.
But to use this as a reason to not support legislation is unfair, imo.
If you want to play that game and compare how many people in history trying to form a union were beaten, killed, shot on site to the amount of people who were victimized by the workers.......well, history is on the side of the workers.  WHY?  Because the power has always been and is still on the side of the big corporations.

---

by: Jjc2008 @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 17:34:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is nonsense (4.00 / 2)

first...the union's claim of significant increases (hundreds of thousands just this past year alone) contridicts their position that the union's can't get a fair shake.

Bull - this fact is entirely consistent with the possibility that there is widespread illegality in unionization campaigns. Some of that evidence that is the subject of David's post, and you have not in any way responded to.  

second...while I completely agree that every people has an undiniable right to join a union, people should have an equal right not to join one.  is there inimidation by management...YES.   is there inimidation by the unions...YES.  giving the unions easier access and ability to itimidate and cooerce employees who otherwise might not want to join a union is not the answer.  

Access?  You're opposed to unions having access to workers?  Just like a regular election right?  Don't let the Democrats near the voters!  

I'm not suggesting there is never intimidation by union supporters, but where's the evidence that its so common that it requires making it harder for workers who do want a union to organize? Where's the evidence that existing remedies are inadequate when that problem arises?  

this is not an anti union rant.  this is a response to a piece of legislation that if you read it very carefully is entirely one sided.  This is what has set off companies all across the country.  

Corporate America has been anti-union for decades, and the business of anti-union consultants, whose job is to interfere with the right to unionization which you claim to support is booming.  Its ridiculous to suggest that the companies, who accept the present regime that does not require an NLRB election, are motivated by the free choice of the workers.

The story you told is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with majority sign up versus NLRB elections.  What you describe is a violation of criminal laws. EFCA doesn't impact the possibility of intimidation during a strike - it's entirely irrelevant.

We should tighten up the existing laws and penalties for employers who intimidate or harrass employees but we should not take away the basic right of secretly voting.

You also don't understand what present law does or what EFCA does.  Present law does not require an NLRB election (that is, it does not recognize a so called "basic right of secretly voting"), and EFCA allows an NLRB election (therefore "EFCA does not eliminate the vote" isn't "right up to a point", its just an actual reflection of the provisions of the law). Majority sign up has existed for decades.  If you want to dispute the idea that NLRB elections are inherently unfair, you should familiarize yourself with the arguments about why.  

NLRB elections are nothing like say, a presidential election. So arguing based on that sort of analogy is hopelessly misleading.  For more, see this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

for those of you who will counter with "EFCA does not eliminate the vote"...the response is your right to a point....but the likelyhood of a vote after 50% + 1 of the cards being signed are slight to none.  So in essence, it is dissinfranchising the remaining group who did not have an opportunity for opposition.  it also takes away the ability for the person who was intimidated to sign a card from changing their minds secretly.  This is not the American way.

Since the law doesn't eliminate NLRB elections, therefore it's not right up to a point, its just right.  EFCA allows a vote whenever there are cards signed by 30%, not 50% plus one.  

The larger question is how can putting that decision (which selection mode) in the hands of the employer rather than the employees be justified? Because that is precisely what this battle is about.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 00:43:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not putting unions down (0.00 / 1)

this is not about bashing unions.  this is just a personal story which is relevant not because my good friend almost died, but rather because his right to choose was not recognized and respected.  You are absolutely right!!  people are people and we can't control all the bad apples of the world.  But to provide them the tools needed to be able to more easily intimidate or harrass people who might want to make a different choice is not the right way to go.  

There are bad companies and good companies.  There are bad unions and good unions.  EFCA does not level the playing field.  It only provides the bad unions the ability to go after the bad companies at the expense of the workers regardless of their choice.  

---

by: rmoltaban @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 17:50:29 PM UTC

Fuck off (0.00 / 0)

This is about bashing unions. You're not fooling anyone.

You're taking an isolated example to do down the entire movement, although union intimidation is rare (because the NRLB stamps on it) and company intimidation is clearly widespread.

There's a basic civility expected here, but I believe in exceptions, so I'll be frank: Fuck off. We have no use for union-bashers. We believe in statistics. We believe in government. If there's abuse, report it to the fucking NRLB. Stop pretending all unions are run by Jimmy Hoffa.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, fuck off. This isn't Free Republic.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:01:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you so much!!! (0.00 / 0)

you have just proven my point....let me add you to my list of union assholes.

you sound like George Bush (if yer not wit us...yer gainst us!!!!)

---

by: rmoltaban @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:35:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I recall...... (4.00 / 1)

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary the employer simply needs to collect 50%+1 cards signed by workers to de-certify a union. All the employer needs to do then is intimidate that many people and the Union is gone. There is no "Secret" ballot to get rid of a Union, so it is quite disingenuous to howl about the same rules to certify one.

In Either case a secret ballot can be called for, so a secret ballot is always possible, though again the actual secrecy may be in question. But whatever the reasoning I would think that the rules should play the same in either direction.

---

by: Freedem @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 19:48:49 PM UTC

The evidence is EFCA (0.00 / 0)

in order to decertify, there would need to be a secret ballot election.  EFCA only calls for card check to certify a union.  Again, very one sided.  

To your exact point, if you are arguing that secrecy is in question, lets tighten up the election process and not just eliminate it altogether.

---

by: rmoltaban @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 20:26:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link? nt (4.00 / 1)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 20:30:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]