| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
|
Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45:34 PM MST
|
| The Montana Chamber keeps it going. Repeat the misinformation often enough and people just might believe it.
The Missoulian owes its readers a correction for printing this op-ed.
Here's just a few incorrect facts and misleading statements: They do this by taking away secret ballot elections in union campaigns and replacing it with a system called "card check." False. Nowhere in the Employee Free Choice Act are secret ballot elections taken away. The meaningful difference is simply that majority sign-up, also known as "card check," no longer needs employer approval to be used as the mechanism for unionizing at work. Webb Brown's statement here is flat-out untrue.
Also, as I've pointed out before, under the Employee Free Choice Act, employees retain the ability to request secret ballot decertification elections if they wish to no longer be unionized. Under this system, union organizers would be able to approach workers and ask them to sign a card saying they want a union. This form of organizing leaves employees vulnerable to labor union strong-arm tactics and peer pressure. Highly Misleading. Under the current election system, union organizers already are able to "approach workers and ask them to sign a card saying they want a union." In fact, they already have to do that to form a union. In this situation, nothing changes. In fact, the ability of union organizers to talk to other people -- or of employees to talk to their co-workers -- is and should be a protected First Amendment right. Webb Brown is grandstanding here.Employers would be forced to reach a deal on collective bargaining agreements within 90 days of a successful union election. If no agreement is made, government arbitrators will come and make the decisions. This isn't actually false or misleading, it is simply hilarious how opposed to binding arbitration the Chamber is in this one instance. Binding arbitration provisions of contracts are quite common as they require people to negotiate in good faith.
As an example, a family member of mine was part of a workforce that organized and unionized under current NLRB law. They waited three years for a first union contract as management dragged their feet indefinitely. Memo to Chamber: no one goes to binding arbitration provided you're being a good employer and a good corporate citizen.
One other quick note: binding arbitration also applies to any foot dragging by the union. In other words, both sides of the table have to negotiate. This isn't a one-sided thing. So I guess this is misleading, too. My bad. In addition, employers will be subjected to higher penalties when they speak out against the union. Completely False. This is just a load of crap. The government can't penalize businesses for free speech. The penalties that Webb Brown is upset about are penalties for intimidating employees and firing them for being pro-union -- essentially interfering with workers' right to association. I'd love to see where penalties for giving anti-union speech exist anywhere in federal law.Labor unions cite employer intimidation as a reason to pass card check. Employers counter that labor unions often use deceit and threats in union campaigns, not to mention the many cases of union corruption. But the truth is that under the current system of private elections, workers are protected with the secret ballot that prevents their employer and the labor union from knowing how they voted. Both false and misleading. Whoever wrote this needs to star in the sequel to Thank You for Smoking because it is a veritable artwork of smoke and mirrors. I'm honestly impressed by the deceitfulness. The idea that intimidation of employees by management and unions is any way equivalent is incredible and without evidence. By comparison, a poll of employees who worked in workplaces that had gone through unionizing campaigns found that employees reported that management was far more likely to intimidate them than the union. In elections, for example, 46% said they were intimidated by management v. only 14% of employees saying the felt intimidated by union organizers during a majority sign-up effort.
Long story short: management intimidates workers way more than unions do.
Hint: this explains why the Chamber also opposes increasing penalties for intimidating employees during union campaigns. |
| Matt Singer :: Webb of Distortion on Free Choice Act |
|
| Tags:
Webb Brown,
chamber of commerce,
Congress,
Dennis Rehberg,
Max Baucus,
Jon Tester,
2009,
Montana,
Labor,
Employee Free Choice,
(All Tags)
|
|
| Poll |
| Voting. Useful or not? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
