Ben Nelson Stands Up To "Smear Tactics" Against Democrats & The EFCA

I don't know why... (0.00 / 0)

... they had to inject the card check requirement onto this bill. The rest of the bill makes sense. The card check part of it is utter nonsense.

I was represented by a union for the years. I made it through college with wages and benefits the bargaining unit brought to me. I didn't understand why the union protected a handful of morons who deserved to be fired, but the vast majority of the workers were great people who made a better living because of the bargaining unit.

All that doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to this card check thing. If the system of secret balloting is broken, then fix it. Trying to replace it with just a card check system, where organizers can ask a worker on the spot to sign the card, is just plain wrong. I hope it gets an up or down vote, but I hope Nelson votes against it and I hope it fails.

---

by: Vox Moderi @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:17:39 AM CST

"Just plain wrong"? (0.00 / 0)

There's nothing inherently wrong with labor organizers being able to "ask a worker on the spot" to sign a card stating his or her intention to form a collective bargaining unit.  The secret ballot may hold a special and sacred place in democratic government, but the intimidation and imbalance that so often prevails in the work place makes for a very different environment.

The current system tilts in favor of management - where power already lies.  A card check system tilts in favor of workers wanting a unified voice and a seat at the table.  I'm not suggesting that it's perfect, but it's certainly a reasonable alternative.

---

by: Kyle Michaelis @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 20:45:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for illustrating my points.

"A card check system tilts in favor of workers"

Exactly. This law isn't intended to create fairness, its intended to give an advantage to people who want unions. You can think this is good, but if you support this don't pretend you're supporting fairness.

And if they really were "wanting a unified voice", they wouldn't have anything to fear about a secret ballot. Most anyone is okay with the idea of using card check to get to a secret ballot, and if you look up the law on the books there are other ways that organizers can get a secret ballot as well.

And yes, there IS something "inherently wrong with labor organizers being able to "ask a worker on the spot" to sign a card stating his or her intention to form a collective bargaining unit", just like there is something wrong with the system now giving unfair leverage to employers. If there is nothing wrong about it why isn't it okay for me to go door to door and ask people to vote for Obama, Kleeb, Esch, Mello etc... on the spot? I voted for, donated to and/or volunteered for all of them, but I think most of us would agree it would be wrong to put people on the spot and get them to vote for even someone they support in that fashion.

This law plays right into the hands of the right. We talk up and down about wanting equality and fairness, and then you support a law that keeps unfairness going, just for people who tend to be on our side instead of theirs. If you've been harping on the right for equality and fairness, like I have, your support of this undercuts your credibility. Its the same crap that keeps the pendulum of power swinging back and forth as a party comes into power, abuses it... then the right gets another crack at screwing things up.

Just so happens that polling has also shown that not only do a large majority of Americans think that taking the secret ballot out of the process is wrong, but so do a comfortable majority of workers. Apparently the only people who want this are those who think the ends justify the means they want, or the union organizers who supposedly represent the workers who don't even want this. The right is licking their lips, hoping this gets passed, so they have something to attack us on.

Like I said, the rest of the law is fine and dandy. I'm all for it actually, mainly upping of penalties for breaking rules already on the books and whatnot. There are plenty of ways they could actually legislate more fairness into this system. This will give the right another wedge issue that they'll actually be able to get some traction on. Its hypocritical and wrong, the public doesn't agree with it by a comfortable margin and its just plain undemocratic.

"The secret ballot may hold a special and sacred place in democratic government, but the intimidation and imbalance that so often prevails in the work place makes for a very different environment."

I really can't believe you're saying its okay to toss out the secret ballot, right after recognizing its sacredness in our democracy. The problem is the imbalance in favor of employers. This law creates yet another problem... with it TWO forces could legally use coercive tactics to get workers to do what they want. So instead of coming up with legislation that tries to take away employers' ability to pressure workers into not forming a union, you enable MORE coercion. Congratulations folks... good to see partisanship trumps your democratic ideals.

I don't always see eye to eye with Nelson... but in this case, atta boy Ben.

---

by: Vox Moderi @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:32:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Some things to consider (0.00 / 0)

Here are some things I put together on this a year ago:

The right to a secret ballot is already allowed under federal law. The proposed bill doesn't take away from that. It provides protections for the workers. Specifically, it "Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees have authorized designation of the representative and there is no other individual or labor organization currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit."

You need to read the bill in conjuction with existing law, which you can see below. This bill only adds that in conjuction with an investigation into a petition submitted, if a majority is found requesting a representative, an election shall not have to be held. The majority of the bill the builds in further protections against employer intimidation tactics.

Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c))

(c) [Hearings on questions affecting commerce; rules and regulations] (1) Whenever a petition shall have been filed, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board--

(A) by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a substantial number of employees (i) wish to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer declines to recognize their representative as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section], or (ii) assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; or

(B) by an employer, alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9(a) [subsection (a) of this section]; the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation affecting commerce exists shall provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. Such hearing may be conducted by an officer or employee of the regional office, who shall not make any recommendations with respect thereto. If the Board finds upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists, it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results thereof.

(2) In determining whether or not a question of representation affecting commerce exists, the same regulations and rules of decision shall apply irrespective of the identity of the persons filing the petition or the kind of relief sought and in no case shall the Board deny a labor organization a place on the ballot by reason of an order with respect to such labor organization or its predecessor not issued in conformity with section 10(c) [section 160(c) of this title].

(3) No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held. Employees engaged in an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be eligible to vote under such regulations as the Board shall find are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act [subchapter] in any election conducted within twelve months after the commencement of the strike. In any election where none of the choices on the ballot receives a majority, a run-off shall be conducted, the ballot providing for a selection between the two choices receiving the largest and second largest number of valid votes cast in the election.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the waiving of hearings by stipulation for the purpose of a consent election in conformity with regulations and rules of decision of the Board.

(5) In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the purposes specified in subsection (b) [of this section] the extent to which the employees have organized shall not be controlling.

---

by: Lisa Hannah @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:45:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Its hard to believe every other place is misinterpreting the law (0.00 / 0)

If every other site out there, on BOTH sides, says this law makes secret ballots able to be bypassed by card check... I'd have to say I believe them.

Really, all I've seen that I don't like about this is bypassing secret ballots. They should be mandatory, and the laws should find a way to make it easier to get to that point and for both sides to make their cases without fear of reprisal. If ANY coercion goes on, the punishment should be on the level of shock and awe, no matter which side.

---

by: Vox Moderi @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:11:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seriously? (0.00 / 0)

Why is it I can't find a single person, on any site I've found, that can support this with an argument that doesn't boil down to "THEY get to coerce the workers, so we should be able to too!"?

---

by: Vox Moderi @ Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 13:04:53 PM CST