Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLABOR:
Big union reels as card-check fight looms
Culinary leader in Vegas calls parent union chief’s actions ‘undemocratic’
Leila Navidi
Unite Here General President Bruce Raynor appears in 2007 with workers in Las Vegas. Raynor has sued his co-president, John Wilhelm, and seven others, alleging “a naked power grab by Wilhelm and his followers, including D. Taylor.” Taylor is secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union in Las Vegas, and he denies the allegations.
Thursday, Jan. 29, 2009 | 2 a.m.
At a time when Big Labor is pushing for one voice to win its most ambitious priority since the Great Depression — “card check” legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize — one of the country’s largest and most progressive unions is busy fighting its own civil war.
Sun Archives
- Reid: Vote on card check bill, a labor priority, likely in summer (1-27-2009)
- Leaders of Culinary parent union embroiled in nasty lawsuit (1-27-2009)
- Card check issue stalls panel’s vote on nominee (1-23-2009)
- Left relieved by Obama’s words on card check (1-17-2009)
- Mum about card check, a key issue for labor (1-10-2009)
Beyond the Sun
Unite Here General President Bruce Raynor has sued the man with whom he shares power, former Las Vegas union leader John Wilhelm, for allegedly attempting to seize control of the international union.
Unite Here is the parent organization of Culinary Workers Local 226, Nevada’s largest and most powerful union.
Raynor’s lawsuit also goes after D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary. Taylor, along with six other defendants, sits on Unite Here’s executive committee and is widely considered Wilhelm’s protege. Throughout the 1990s, the two men rebuilt the Culinary after years of decline and a devastating citywide strike, making it into the country’s largest and most successful union local.
How the Unite Here infighting might play out in Las Vegas is unclear, but elsewhere, casino workers say employers are exploiting the internal dissension and testing the union’s resolve by violating union contracts.
Tension between Raynor and Wilhelm has been brewing since Unite, the textile and apparel workers union, merged with Here, the hotel and casino workers union, in 2004. At the time, the two men devoted considerable attention to developing a power-sharing arrangement, enabling “a merger of equals … without either side fearing domination by the other,” according to Raynor’s complaint, filed last week in U.S. District Court in New York.
Raynor accused Wilhelm and his former Here allies, including Taylor, of using an executive committee meeting in New York last month to seize power, forcing votes on a number of internal administrative and spending measures that were the province of the two co-presidents. By circumventing Raynor, Wilhelm and the other committee members violated the union’s constitution, the complaint said.
Wilhelm was traveling Wednesday and unavailable for comment.
Raynor’s lawsuit seeks to reverse Wilhelm’s actions and prevent similar ones.
The executive committee’s votes, taken at Wilhelm’s behest, compromised the “essential work” of the union — resolving disputes with employers and organizing, Raynor said. Indeed, there appears to be little remaining good will between the two leaders and their factions, with Raynor, in an e-mail response to the Sun’s questions, pronouncing the 4-1/2year-old merger a failure.
“The strength of our union has been compromised by two things: the failure of this merger to produce results for working people and a naked power grab by Wilhelm and his followers, including D. Taylor, designed to enhance their own power and financial control of the union rather than deal with the real issues our members are facing.”
Taylor offered a wholesale denial of the claims made in Raynor’s complaint, saying the union’s executive committee, comprised of elected officers, acted within the authority of the union’s constitution. He called the Unite faction’s lawsuit “beyond belief,” charging that Raynor, not Wilhelm, was interested in consolidating power.
“There’s a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and democratic trade unionism,” Taylor said. “We do not think we should have a dictatorship of one or two people. We think democratically elected bodies should be able to have authority over the future direction of the union. The idea that you would try to stifle a democracy that is the norm in most unions is besides sad, it’s tragic.”
Taylor said the lawsuit was one in a series of “undemocratic” actions taken by Unite-affiliated entities within the union in recent months. For instance, this month, a regional Unite Here board in the Midwest controlled by former Unite officials removed the head of Local 24, which represents casino workers in Detroit. The union leader, Joe Daugherty, led the epic six-year strike at the Frontier in Las Vegas, earning him the nickname “Saint Joe,” and is aligned with Wilhelm.
Daugherty said the regional board fired him from his post as the union’s Michigan state director and, as part of what he referred to as an “illegal takeover attempt,” barred him and other elected officers from the local’s offices. “No notification, no meeting, no justification. It’s a power grab,” Daugherty said. “The joint board is trying to gain political power and have control of the dues money from Local 24.”
The Detroit dispute is now in court and a majority of members from the local have signed a petition to disaffiliate from the regional board, Daugherty said. (A Unite Here local in Phoenix has taken similar measures to fend off a perceived takeover by Unite supporters.) Still, the conflict has disrupted the union’s work, including contract negotiations with a bankrupt casino operator, as both sides claim to be the sole collective bargaining representative of workers.
“It’s a big mess,” said Muhith Mahmood, a food server and shop steward at MGM Grand Detroit. “They should have come out and talked to us. They can’t just come in and throw somebody out.” He said casino operators were taking advantage of the internal conflict by violating contracts and terminating employees for minor offenses.
To be sure, the Unite faction and the regional board have defenders in Detroit.
Earnest Lemond, president of Local 24’s airport division, said his shop at the airport had threatened to decertify the union 18 months ago because of what he called Daugherty’s ineffective leadership. Despite promises about better representation, things never improved, said Lemond, who complained to the regional board.
One point both sides can agree on: “We’re supposed to be one union, Unite Here, not Unite and Here,” Lemond said. “Our dues are financing this battle and the members are the ones being neglected.”
The cracks between the two factions could be seen two years ago, as the union wrestled over its endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. The Culinary, in conjunction with the international union, had planned to announce its decision after the Iowa caucuses last year, but postponed it until after the New Hampshire primary, leaving the union just 10 days to educate members about its choice, Sen. Barack Obama. In the Nevada caucus, Obama was beaten badly in Clark County, the union’s stronghold, and those in the Wilhelm faction blamed the long delay on Raynor, who publicly favored former Sen. John Edwards.
Labor foes, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will surely find fodder in the internal dispute, and with recent turmoil within the Service Employees International Union, as the card-check bill makes its way through Congress. But former Rep. David Bonior, who was on the short list to be Obama’s labor secretary and was labor’s closest ally during his long tenure in Congress, said he remains optimistic about the bill’s passage.
In fact, this month, Bonior moderated a meeting of labor leaders representing the country’s 12 largest unions, including Unite Here. The subject: reunification, after the labor movement split into two rival federations in 2005.
Internal disputes, Bonior said, won’t derail the ongoing talks.
“The labor movement is millions of people and thousands of leaders,” he said. “At any given time there’s a grievance. It’s not unusual.”
Raynor and Wilhelm face reelection this summer at the union’s convention, where Taylor and other union officials have pledged to outline a “clear platform of democratic reforms.”
Discussion: 56 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Franchione potential early candidate for UNLV football post
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Big fight headed for a New Frontier?
- Mayor: Morale not good among LV city employees
- Hotels rein in risque advertising campaigns
- $60 million to stabilize neighborhoods buys five homes
- Las Vegas condo hotels remain a tough sell — just ask Trump
- MGM Mirage (finally) makes George Strait show official
- Reserve Rebels didn’t have time to panic
- Funny Face: Carrot Top’s stage act a mask of contradictions
Blogs
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (2 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (1 Comment)
Elsewhere
Harvard Poker Pro: Texas Hold 'Em skills can help traders
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 21 Sat
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
These goons don't want "card check" they want a "blank check".
Absolute power absolutely corrupts.
Especially when that power rests in the hands of the employer. The only rights an employer loses with a card check system is the right to fire and obstruct union organizers during the average 6 years it takes between an election and certification by the NLRB. On objection to the election is all it takes to but the case on the NLRB's slow-train, and no one is protected during that time. That's it. That's all the check card system does.
"Wilhelm was traveling Wednesday and unavailable for comment."
Does he walk with his lips? What a weirdo!
What the card check system does is attempt to destroy the democratic process. After all, in Cuba you can vote for Castro.
What about the workers who do not want a union? Evidently they have no vote. The concept of card check is utterly wrong and undemocratic and many Democrats probably realize as much--but they take the union's money anyway. Maybe they are waiting for the Republicans to kill the issue.
Organized labor without card check, increased membership by 428,000 in 2008 and 311,000 in 2007. The Unions have had no problem unionizing where they make a case to represent workers. Why do we need to change.
How much are these Union Bosses paid what are their bonuses? How much are the enforcer paid?
Rep. Hilda Solis as an unabashed union supporter [not a business supporter] should not be embarrassed to state her position on card check.
But what Hilda Solis needs to address is what law language she will add that will prevent card checks tactics of intimidation by union enforcers, to force union bosses will on unwilling employees.
Basically the Union will always choose check card process. A group of say 15% of the workers should be able to appeal directly to the labor board to call for a secret ballot.
Despite a 11% wage increase offer, in a down economy, Machinist Union District Lodge 751 went on strike Sept 7, 2008, after they were just on strike in 2005 for a month. Boeing lost $56 millions the 4th quarter of 2008, announced that 10,000 jobs are cut to reflect lost sales, and will have to outsource more fabrication. The Union put excessive price pressure on a product that can be made internationally by others is not good business.
People should be able to quit unions that cost jobs.
Good info and post, Future2012
"... The idea that you would try to stifle a democracy that is the norm in most unions is besides sad, it's tragic."
That is so true if applied to replacing secret ballots with card-check. Talk about hypocrisy.
It looks as if no one reading these posts is getting information on the Employee Free Choice Act. It also sounds as if the posters are a crowd of management shills. I would guess that none have ever tried to organize a work place where the management threatens firing (or in many cases actually does fire) of union supporters. No one it appears has ever heard the boss threaten to take away benefits or close the doors of the workplace or move to another state or country. These actions are all quite common and all are illegal. Why does management do this? - because they are allowed to abuse the laws which govern union organizing in this country. Unions have been quite successful at raising the salaries, not only of their members, but of all workers in this country. They have fought for safer workplaces, health benefits, and pensions against abuse of workers. If you don't think this is necessary than I submit that you are clueless and ought find a good book to read.
Future2012 also asks "How much are these Union Bosses paid what are their bonuses? How much are the enforcer paid?" First of all union salaries are public -- the way Future2012 makes the challenge you'd think he'd know this but apparently not. "Enforcers" -- what is meant by that? Are you stating that unions force their way into a workplace illegally? If so you are pathetically misinformed.
The Employee Free Choice Act does not prohibit elections as some posters have assumed without having bothered to do their home work. I suppose if they can read this then they can find this information on line (with the exception of Future 2012 who does not seem concerned with the truth). I am hoping they do rather than post their foolishness so everyone can see it.
As for Hilda Solis, Future2012, that she's an "unabashed union supporter (not a business supporter)" have you happened to look at those who have been Secretaries of Labor under Republican Administrations check it out and see how many have been an unabashed business supporters. I guess that's okay. I suggest jfnance32, if this is good info for you that you go do a little research on this for yourself and don't rely on the likes of Future2012 who clearly has the business community at heart, and misinformation as his reason (to be kind) to post at this site.
midon missed the part where Organized labor without card check, increased membership by 428,000 in 2008 and 311,000 in 2007.
The Unions have had no problem unionizing where they make a case to represent workers.
midon has not hear of hired organizer Steve Maritas who uses abusive business disruptive tactics such as comparing the employer management as Muslim Terrorists on website, and use of paid prostitutes and homeless on picket lines.
Union have ensured that only the political correct politicians get elected. Intimidations of other candidates including 24/7 (Anthony Pellicano like) electronic surveillance of the opposition (Lynette Boggs comes to mind) is the norm.
Give us the link to those salaries
The Culinary Union has shown great vision in the way it has lead the way in card check agreements. Workers should not have their jobs threatened by anti-union bosses if they want to join a union. It is their right to do so. Workers in Las Vegas are better off because of the leadership of people like John Wilhelm and D. Taylor. The standard that has been set here is a boost to the entire Las Vegas community.
Apparently some of you whom have posted here have never been through an NLRB election. That's why I will forgive your ignorance of what that process really entails. Do you have any idea of how many workers are harrassed and fired while trying to win a union through the current NLRB process? And how long it takes to actually get a contract, if ever??? It is completely slanted to favor big business. Let's be real about that!
As for card check not allowing a choice for the folks who don't want a Union, their choice is to not sign a card. That is their "NO" vote.
America needs a strong vibrant middle class and unions provide that. We've had a race to the bottom for a long time now in wages, benefits and workers rights. It shouldn't be a high risk situation for workers to form a Union. It's high time we changed that trend ~ the Employee Free Choice Act is the best way to get that done.
"No one it appears has ever heard the boss threaten to take away benefits or close the doors of the workplace or move to another state or country. These actions are all quite common and all are illegal."
I suggest you back this up with a posting of the law making it illegal for a business owner to decide to close his doors or move anytime he wants to. It's called "free enterprise". Even if the workers do organize the owner is still free to lock them out at anytime if market conditions so indicate.
The outwardly visible power of a union is the picket line and the call to boycott. These tatics are commonly backed up by intimidation and threats when they are not honored by those willing to work without being in a union. The union has NO power if there is a surplus of labor and the picket line is ignored. Again, this is called "free enterprise".
One contributing factor to our current economic problems is the fact that some unions that have gotten greedy and become parasites instead of being symbiotes.
I love future's posts, because you always know when he wrote his own versus unattributed cut and paste jobs.
Spell check dude, spell check.
To Future2012
1. Never heard of Steve Maritas but I had heard of his father who perhaps was mobbed up which unions are definitely not these days. The union that Maritas has is an independent, non-AFL-CIO or Change to Win union and unions such as these exist to take members away from legitimate unions. No one condones these tactics most of all UNITE HERE the union in this story.
2. Unions are required by law to file documents with the DOL which are available on line at the DOL website.
3. As to unions deciding that politically correct politicians get elected you must be delusional. "Politically correct" is the term the right uses so they can insult anyone who disagrees with their characterization of a minority, woman or handicapped and if you defend this you're no better than a bigot. Unions have always fought for people who support their positions. Doesn't business do the same? Is it not insane to support a politician who will cut your throat? You sound like someone who doesn't have a clue about politics and how it all works.
To boftx:
1. The law to which I refer is the Taft-Hartley Act also known as the Labor-Management Relations Act. Management is not allowed, during an organizing campaign, to threaten to take away workers' benefits, reduce workers wages, move their business out of state or country or in anyway intimidate workers in order to keep the union out. That they do these illegal actions is why unions are fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. In case you didn't know the Taft-Hartley Act has been called the "Slave Labor Act" by unions. Written by conservative Republican politicians and lawyers for big business in a very conservative time -- even those conservatives agreed that business does not have the right to intimidate workers in pursuit of a union.
2. "One contributing factor to our current economic problems is the fact that some unions that have gotten greedy and become parasites instead of being symbiotes." Boftx are getting any news at all into your head??!! AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Wachovia, Madoff, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Long Term Guarantee Trust"should I go on? None of these patriotic organizations have anything to do with unions. I really do suggest that rather than to show everyone how much you don't know that you pick up a book on labor history. It really might open your eyes as to what unions do in fact and not in your imagination.
I said "contributing", not "sole" factor.
I'll check the details on Taft-Hartley for myself, but I notice your quoute didn't say a thing about shutting a business down. And I suspect that when I read the details the clause about not relocating is under certain conditions.
If you really want to protect Amercian jobs and workers you should be asking why there are no import tarrifs to raise the effective cost of labor for imported goods to our standards. THAT would be an impressive thing for the labor movement to acheive. Simply have a tarrif such that if a foriegn made widget had labor costs of $1/hr, the tarrif imposed would be enough to bring it to our minimum wage. That still allows for competition at the cost of resource level as well as the efficency level.
"If you really want to protect Amercian jobs and workers you should be asking why there are no import tarrifs to raise the effective cost of labor for imported goods to our standards. "
I think that is what Hoover did.
It worked very well.
"One contributing factor to our current economic problems is the fact that some unions that have gotten greedy and become parasites instead of being symbiotes."
Despite a 11% wage increase offer, in a down economy, Machinist Union District Lodge 751 went on strike Sept 7, 2008, after they were just on strike in 2005 for a month. Boeing lost $56 millions the 4th quarter of 2008 (Boeing made $1 billion in the 4th quarter of 2007), announced that 10,000 jobs are cut to reflect lost sales, and will have to outsource more fabrication.
hey future, you already posted that one on this thread. Why not find another thread to post that cut and paste trash.
Whether you're pro-union or anti-union, explain to me why it is "secretive" and "undemocratic" to be allowed to vote one way or the other?
It sounds paranoid to me.
Or, are the folks that are staunchly anti-union simply worried that the majority of people will check-off (I.E. VOTE) in the affirmative for union representation?
"The law to which I refer is the Taft-Hartley Act also known as the Labor-Management Relations Act. Management is not allowed, during an organizing campaign, to threaten to take away workers' benefits, reduce workers wages, move their business out of state or country or in anyway intimidate workers in order to keep the union out."
I have researched the bill and can not find any section of it, or in the NLRB list of "unfair labor practices", or in the earlier Wagner Act which says an employer may not close or move the business if they so desire. Please cite section and paragraph.
For the record, one of the big reasons I am against unions is that, even though prohibited, closed- and union-shops stil exist to this day and prevent otherwise qualified people from gaining employment. In many ways, unions are no different than corrupt governments.
gmag, the issue is of potential intimidation of voters if the vote is open as opposed to secret. In secret ballots, a person may publicly indicate support for a position to avoid pressure but in the ballot booth vote differently.
This is not possible in "open" votes such as card check. There, it is a simple matter for shop stewards to see who hasn't signed up and have a "talk" with them explaining why it is in their best interest to do so.
I'm not saying that management doesn't try similar things, but the secret vote provides at least minimal security for the employee when choosing for himself.
In May 2008 with car sales down, UAW local 31 struck the GM Fairfax plant for some mysterious grievance.
UAW Local 602 struck Lansing for four weeks (May 2008) over another mysterious grievance.
These strikes and the one at American Axle and Manufacturing Holding cost GM $2 billion in the second quarter of 2007. The AA & MH strike cost the UAW 2000 jobs with the remaining cut by over 1/2 to $30 to 45/hour.
Now we are bailing out GM.
The Writer's Guild strike only cost the LA economy $3.6 billion. The lowly grips and other had no income for several months. No big deal to the Union writers. SAG is next.
Future what do you care about SAG or the Writer's Guild. Maybe they have real grievances. Maybe you're just drinking hater-aid, because you don't have a union job. I know for a fact that the Writer's Guild had real grievances dealing with the new phenom of DVD sales of TV shows. They wanted a slice of that huge pie. In any case Tinseltown got by just fine. Don't weep for the rank and file there. They knew what they were getting into, and in any case often the rank and file have to have other jobs to support themselves.
The only bad thing to come out of the Writers' strike was a junky awards show and more reality TV. Ooooooo.
Also if it's such a huge deal that auto workers strike, what about a lockout. Followed by the use of scabs. In this economy I'm sure plenty of people would be ready, willing, and able.
employers are exploiting the internal dissension and testing the union's resolve by violating union contracts. I wonder how many places are doing this ?
Today's unions protect a small part of the workforce at a cost to the rest of us.
Nance; I would agree that regarding disciplinary matters you are correct. Unfortunately, some idiots take advantage in life wherever and whenever possible.
However, the broader scope of union representation goes to ALL employees having protections and being represented in negotiations involving pay/benefits.
gmag, "I would agree that regarding disciplinary matters you are correct. Unfortunately, some idiots take advantage in life wherever and whenever possible."
Those idiots can also be union management (for redferret who can't understand what that means, unions have management too)
I have seen first hand how the culinary union behaves towards its rank and file.
Secret ballot is a basic tenet of a democratic society.
It protects our freedom to choose in privacy of a voting booth.
I was involved in a union certification election at a manfacturing plant.
If they found out a worker was not for the union then the pro-union forces would harass that worker. They would slash their tires. Sabtotage their equipment.
Just imagine if those thugs were walking around asking people to vote for the union. People would either have to fight (physically) or vote for the union.
Secret ballot is a basic tenet of a democratic society.
jfnance where does it say that the secret ballot is outlawed in this bill? Why don't you do a little research before you spread your lack of understanding all over the place.
Today's unions protect a small part of the workforce at a cost to the rest of us.
jfnance - please when you make these statemnts you seem never to know what you are talking about. Who's costing you what?!
getalife, why don't you get a life. Or are you still smarting over your moronic statement that Switzerland isn't a country. FYI, DON'T drag me into a conversation.
I understand unions have management, hence the term union bosses. So don't condescend to me, since I'm sure I have more degrees than you.
Yeah, that is completely misleading. Card check DOES NOT alter the provisions for secret ballot:
"Card check doesn't allow labor leaders to forgo anything. It allows workers to do so. The Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to modify the National Labor Relation Act's provision ensuring that if 30 percent of workers want a secret ballot election, one will be held. That could even happen after a card check election. If three-of-ten workers are unhappy, they can call the union into question in a secret ballot election. Let me state that again, and clearly: Card check does not end the secret ballot."
"What card check does allow, however, is for workers to forgo the long, drawn out election in which employers routinely fire union supporters, intimidate workers, put the union supporters on awful shifts as a warning, hire unionbusting consultants, and so on, and so forth. Power matters, and in a workplace, employers have plenty of it. "
Card check takes away the need for a ballot at all. Making the ballot optional is the problem. Anyone who speaks up against the union and wants a ballot is now an open target for retaliation by his peers. This concept goes directly against the concepts of our soceity.
I love the term "Management shills" used by midon, as if Companies have Management staff standing by to counter opinions rendered on this site.
These are not the days of a by-gone era where sweat shops were common place, where workers were forced to work well beyond physically or mentally healthy hours, where children were working in industrial environments rather than being educated. These days, if an employer desires a motivated, hard working employee, he either has to offer a wage and benefits comensurate to someones abilities and skills, or forego having an employee of a higher caliber. If an individual is not satisfied with the pay scale or benefits offered by an employer, he or she has the right to not take the job. Just as one example is a very recent situation here in town: An individual of the Jewish faith took a job as a Metro Police Officer, knowing full well in advance, of the grooming standards which come along with that position. But this individual has now decided he wants to adhere to the Orthodox standards of his faith and wear not only his skull cap (Yarmulke), but also wear a beard, which is completely counter to Metro's standards. Through involvement of the PPA (Police Officers Union) he has won the right to do so. WHY? He knew the standards of the job when he applied for and accepted the position. I have to believe that very few people accept a position without knowing in advance what the pay scale and benefits offered are, yet they want a Union to improve either or both after they accept the position.
The Unions claim to protect the wages of its' members in a downturned economy, but to what end? If a business could remain functional with a pay cut to its employees, would that not make more sense than to either have to cut a portion of its workforce, or worse case scenario close the doors because it can no longer afford to stay open? Does an employer have plenty of power, as ksand99 states? Yes, within the laws set by the Government and Labor related agencies, as they should. Business owners put thier money and effort into the business, and they OWN it. Again, if the pay, benefits, or environment aren't to a prospective employees liking, they don't have to take the job. And one last point: Many, if not all of the Unions, have some members which are either far less than qualified, or less than motivated to do a fair days work, yet an employer has to accept them because they are union members and overly protected despite thier severe shortcomings. Where is the sense of fairness in that?
These are not the days of a by-gone era where sweat shops were common place, where workers were forced to work well beyond physically or mentally healthy hours, where children were working in industrial environments rather than being educated.
Where have you been!!??
If an individual is not satisfied with the pay scale or benefits offered by an employer, he or she has the right to not take the job.
Or he/she can form a union.
midon, I will grant that in many other countries working conditions are indeed poor and inhumane, but that is NOT the case here.
If you really want to protect the American worker and job market, STOP IMPORTANTING goods with a lower cost of labor than ours! Since that clearly is impossible, put a tarrif on incoming goods, whether manufactured by an American company or not, that raises the effective cost-of-labor to our minimum wage standards. I guarantee that will boost our own job market again.
to boooooftx:
you want:I have researched the bill and can not find any section of it, or in the NLRB list of "unfair labor practices", or in the earlier Wagner Act which says an employer may not close or move the business if they so desire. Please cite section and paragraph.
I'm really sorry that you can't find it but it shows me how deficient your research skills are. Without even having "researched" you post your nonsense. Why not take a few minutes and do some real research instead of asking me to be your teacher. It would have been easy for me to do if you were even in the least receptive but everything you post is in oppostion to unions without having taken the time to really find out about them. It's part of the law but as you obviously can't understand that there's such a thing as case law. Unions have been in the legal arena for years while you and Future2012 have been banging your heads against the wall. You'd think it would have wakened you up. I guess not.
to gmag39
The Employee Free Choice Act does not prohibit votes. If you are familiar with the way unions organize you know that if unions get 33% of the employees to sign cards they can have an election. Unions don't do this often as employers actually do threaten workers when they get wind of an organizing campaign. I don't understand why some posters here seem to think businesses are God's gift to the workers. Polls have shown that about 70-80% of workers in this country would like to have a union but are afraid that the bosses would carry out the threats they know are out there. Where do you think they got these impressions? Many have been through organizing campaigns and have seen how nasty the boss can be when unions are on the scene. In the Employee Free Choice Act a union wins when it gets 51% of the cards signed. This is a vote for the union. There is an election if there is fewer than 50% sign-up. That is an election as well. Unions are reacting against the illegalities they have seen over the years which no Republican Administration cared to address. Why? - because the Republican Party is the party of business. Think of this as leveling the playing field. It would be about time. Also, if you can, get Future2012 and boftx to read a book.
to boftx:
midon, I will grant that in many other countries working conditions are indeed poor and inhumane, but that is NOT the case here.
I suppose I could spend my whgole day here answering you but let me just point to two recent occurrences that cost workers lives because the Bush Mine Safety Administration was headed by a mine owner. The Sago Mine in West Virginia and the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah. Miners died in these accidents because in the case of Sago the mine owner had failed to fill the oxygen bottles that may have saved the miners' lives. In Utah the mining was a dangerous form of mining which should have been prohibited and would have if the head of MiOSHA wasn't a mangement shill(sorry but what should he be called?) The Mine Workers Union had been fighting for safety in health in the mines since before Ronald Reagan was a gleam in his father's eye yet the Republicans hate regulation because it handcuffs business. Does any of this sink in?
Tell ya what midon, I'll re-read the "Communist Manifesto" if you'll read "Atlas Shrugged".
Again, please cite Section and paragraph that you referred to earlier in Taft-Hartley.
No one argues that there are dangerous jobs in this country, but to take mining accidents as an example and try to infer that sweatshops and inhumane conditions are common for the US is not valid.
I noticed you did not comment on how I think jobs could be protected. Are you in favor of NAFTA? How many automotive jobs alone does that kill? Why not look into the decline of the average hourly wage in chicken plants from $19/hr to $9/hr due to the influx of illegal workers? What about people who work on H1B visas? Do you really want to tell me that companies can not find US citizens for entry level programming jobs and have to use H1B instead?
I would think that a pre-union person such as yourself would consider job-outsourcing a primary concern.
In another midon post, he states the following: "I don't understand why some posters here seem to think businesses are God's gift to the workers". Well Midon, where would Unions be, or where would anyone earn a paycheck if it were not for Businesses, and the individuals who have had the drive, and the capability of forming a Business? What kind of wage or benefits would you get from the Union if there were no businesses? Workers earn a wage from thier employer, NOT the union. The last I heard, the Unions make quite a bit of money, and those that run the Unions make a better living off of thier members than the members themselves make. Sounds like just another big business to me.
And just as a side note: Bringing up mine safety in response to my post, or as a defense for the need for unions, where you in turn admit the union has been ineffective in rectifying some major mining safety concerns, sounds like a desperate gasp for air by a drowning man.
I see....if enough workers do not want to accept the outcome of an open ballot then they can challenge it and force a secert ballot.
OK.
We are going to have an election in your neighborhood. We are going to come around and have you sign a card to vote for Republican candidates. If you do not sign the card then we are get in your face, slash your tires and damage your house.
If you object to the open ballot then you have to in the open tell everybody that you object to it.
I doubt that many of you guys have been involved in union ballot certification. I have and it ain't pretty and that is with a secret ballot.
Secret ballot is a basis tenet to the operation of democracy. We should have the right to choose without some goon breathing down our necks.
If I didn't know any better, I'd swear someone was intentionally trying to spread fear and misinformation.
Let me repeat this, once again for any of those too stubborn or illiterate to understand.
The rules and governance of secret ballot union elections DO NOT CHANGE under EFCA.
The right to secret ballot that union organizing currently enjoys remains fully in effect under EFCA.
Some people may want to attempt to convince you otherwise. Those people are not telling you the truth. They would rather tell you boogeyman stories about big bad unions who want to give you a working wage and health care benefits than tell you the truth.
"The rules and governance of secret ballot union elections DO NOT CHANGE under EFCA."
That is a total falsehood.
EFCA does admend the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) in regards to allow union certification without a secret ballot election without consent from the employer.
Both H. R. 800 (House version) and S. 1041 (Senate version) admens NLRA by:
"If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a)."
Under current law, unions go around intimidating..I mean..asking workers to sign a union card. If 30% of the workers sign a union card then that triggers a secret ballot to decide if a union will represent the workers.
Under EFCA if the union thugs intimidate 50% plus 1 of them to sign the cards then there is no election at all. The union automatically represents the workers.
I am confident when union thugs circle around you at work or knocks on your door at night and get in your face that smart people will do the right thing. They will fear the thugs and sign the dam cards.
It would effectively end secret ballot elections.
Why would unions worry about what workers will do in a privacy of a voting booth when they can get in their face and get them to sign a union card?
If the unions love this process then we should make all our elections work the same way.
We should go around and have people sign election ballots in open public for president with special thuggery advice to help the voters make good decisions. If 50% of the voters have signed their public ballots then there is no need to have an election with secret ballots.
I guess I am stupid...why does the union want "card check"?
And, what is wrong with a secret ballot?
"The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nation's chief arbiter of labor disputes, contending that Wurtland Nursing had no right to reject the union without a secret ballot election having occurred. Four years later, the NLRB decided in favor of the company, saying that it didn't matter that there had not been an actual vote. The petition was all the proof the company needed to conclude that the workers no longer wanted to be represented by the union."
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not denounce this decision. Neither the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace nor the Center for Union Facts raised a stink. Despite the fact that Wurtland Nursing had stripped its employees of their union on the basis of signatures on a petition, rather than after a secret ballot election, no prominent critic of EFCA has ever criticized the outcome of that case."
"Yet the principle supposedly being violated by EFCA, the need for a secret ballot, is violated as much by the Wurtland Nursing rule, which allows employers to repudiate unions based on petition signatures, as it would be by EFCA, which would allow workers to obtain union representation in the same manner."
http://edlabor.house.gov/employee-free-c...
From the FACT VS. MYTH section of the Committee on Education & Labor:
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's "secret ballot" election process.
FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act will increase intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers.
FACT: Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drop -- from both sides -- when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. Beyond this, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases which they claimed involved union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.
MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act would require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union.
FACT: Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this.
Thank you.
You now agree that if a union gets 50% plus 1 on just getting workers to sign a union card then there will be no secret ballot election and that is an EFCA change to the current law.
I believe that EFCA would encourage unions to intimidate enough workes to sign union cards so that they would not have to face a secret ballot election.
I believe that most people want to make their choices in private without union thugs getting in their face. There are polls of a large majority of people that agree with that desire to make those choices in a privacy of a voting booth.
Huh, a website listed your line of reasoning as a myth.
What a surprise.
Yes, you listed a website that is under the control of a politican that is the author of the Employee Free Choice Act in the House.
Hmmmmmmm..... I wonder why he would disagree with me?????????
I wonder?????
That is certainly a very good example of you posting worthless very bias subjective garbage to support your point.
You know Pravda has a website, too. They might also have talking points on card-check law, too.
I think the author of the bill has a better understanding of the EFCA than an anonymouse internet commenter, yes.
Jfnance32 likes to repeat myths.
Here is another pitcher of koolaid.
There are tons of politicans' websites to read.
Politicans are not known to deceive or twist facts(LOL).
You should hurry up and be sure to believe and fully trust every word that you read from them.
You should stop reading other material from like science websites or major news sources. They will just confuse you.
Yes, you know the EFCA better than the author. We get it. You know that it "effectively ends secret ballots," even though it doesn't.
I forgot that you wrote the legislation.
I wonder why all your arguments are just debunked talking points from Rush Limbaugh. Hmmmmm.
Lookee....I got excellent supporting material to back me up......Here is a link to website to a bias blowhard politican that babbles about my position with zero hard evidence.
Yep....it is solid info....I always get my hardcore supporting material from politican talking points websites...they are my heros. They never lie or deceive....they are sooooooo honest.
Excuse me for I need to get some more koolaid.
Tell ya what midon, I'll re-read the "Communist Manifesto" if you'll read "Atlas Shrugged".
I don't care what you read but I've read Ayn Rand's garbage. Her books seem to make big impressions on soft heads.