Guest columnist, R. Duane Graham: Concern over rights just a ruse

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_129092857.html?keyword=secondarystory

Published May 09, 2009 09:28 am - Because columnists like George Will and other conservative intellects have written condemnatory pieces on unions over the years, and because right- wingers on radio and television have followed suit with their anti-union rants, it is not surprising that conser-vatives are opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which among other things implements a “card-check” procedure for unionization.

Guest columnist, R. Duane Graham: Concern over rights just a ruse

Because columnists like George Will and other conservative intellects have written condemnatory pieces on unions over the years, and because right- wingers on radio and television have followed suit with their anti-union rants, it is not surprising that conser-vatives are opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which among other things implements a “card-check” procedure for unionization.

But it is surprising that conservative opposition to the proposed change in labor law is based on a concern for workers’ rights.

George Will has written that the EFCA “would deny employees the choice of a secret ballot when voting on unionization of their workplace,” and the Heritage Foundation has charged that it “would strip workers of their fundamental rights and leave them more vulnerable to pressure than before.”

But conservatives don’t fear the EFCA because they are worried about the principle of the “secret ballot,” or are concerned that democracy in the workplace is endangered. They are worried because they know what unions know: It will help to level the playing field between workers and their employers. And in any interaction between labor and management, conservatives and most Republicans will always side with management, since they do not appreciate the value of collective bargaining, the value of relatively powerless individuals joining together to improve their negotiating position with their employers.

In Will’s words, the EFCA would allow union organizers (whom conservatives usually call “bosses”) to “pick the voters they want: Once a majority of workers — exposed one at a time to face-to-face pressure from union organizers — sign a union card, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.” In other words, union thugs will force you to vote for a union.

But such claims ignore the inequities in the present system. Employers are virtually free to threaten, coerce, and intimidate employees, if unionism is in the air. While such bullying is illegal, the penalties are negligible and most employers will incur them to defend against the greater evil of having to bargain with a union.

FULL story at link.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Well said the secret ballot

is instigated because it is to protect individuals and let them express their choices without being intimidated.

Its an interesting philosophical discussion of secrecy. For instance, keeping a combination on a lock secret is used to stop theft. Few argue with that form of secrecy, because it is there as a stop gap to stop the act of theft. But in a perfect world it would not be needed because of if they take your coat you give them your cloak. If you had no attachment to material wealth the secrecy would not be needed.

So the secrecy of a combination on a lock, uses worldly means, or the means of secrecy to protect worldly ideals of 'owning things' Now that is part of the world. Just like having secret balloting in elections is part of the world.

You can make a spiritual argument against it on the grounds it is secret, but you better fully address the issue it is implemented, the intimidation also. If you are going to take the high ground on that secrecy issue, you also have to take the high ground on the other bad things that get it implemented. If you are going to make an argument based on high ground.

So to argue against the secret ballot, you have to give a big hug to every person that votes against your favorite candidate, or votes for a union(if you are corporate manager).

As far as 55% vote making 45% join a union, you are looking at principles of democracy, where the many in society get to chose the best path if it does not infringe the rights of the minority. If you make the case that unions infringe on the right of 45% to work during a strike, you better also defend every small group that is disenfranchised by any vote of the many, who loose any freedom.

This is a basic social contract issue, some freedoms in the social contract are given up so all of society can function. Like people can't steal, which takes away peoples freedom to shoplift an item, and the freedom to shop without being watched by cameras. And as long as there is evil in people, or in the world, things like the social contract are put in place to make the world better. So I would say, if you are going to cry freedom, then work to solve the reason a particular social contract law, like rule of majority is in place. Work on desire for managers to make best profit without regard to wages or health of workers. Or work on teaching people not to steal. If nobody shoplifted, the privacy rights of being 'watched' in a store would not be an issue.

Does that make sense? You can't just pick what part you want morale high ground on. If you want morale high ground on 45% not being made to be unionized, then you have to address all the issues the 55% have that make them want a union. If they are addressed, then the vote for union falls bellow 50% and you solved the freedom of issue 'having to join a union' by addressing the root cause.

Saying the secret ballot is wrong, when there is still intimidation, or saying unions are wrong when managers care more for profit then workers, is a hypocritical look at what is 'high ground' because only the parts of 'high ground' are picked that help the person making the arguement, and that is selfishness not 'high ground'

[bertman]

2. I'm all for allowing workers to vote for unionization. I'm all for having severe penalties for

employers who intimidate, harass, or interfere with lawful union formation activities (and for enforcing them). I'm all for secret ballots.

No worker should have to publicly vote on whether or not s/he wants to be in a union.

[Omaha Steve]

3. They don't have to vote in public

The card check gives them the option of card check OR a secret vote. They just check the option they want. You have been listening to the company bosses as the article tried to point out. IF 50% plus one of the workers check card check, an election is not needed. IF more than 30% ask for an election without the 50% plus one, an election is held. Under the new rules it would be done much faster. Currently it can takes years to get the election held after the count is certified by the NLRB.

[bertman]

4. So, a worker who does not want to unionize asks for a secret vote instead of voting

along with the other pro-union workers who are going with the card check. And you're saying that is just fine.

You are not dealing with reality if you don't think the person who asks for a secret vote is going to be taken for being against the union. You're also not dealing with reality if you don't think that person will suffer intimidation and other forms of harassment for taking that stand.

Why can't they hand out the cards to each worker who walks into a polling-type booth and votes, then puts the card into a ballot box? All done in public. The American way.

By the way, I have not listened to any company bosses. I have based my opinion on my experiences of over 40 years in the workplace, as a worker, manager, and business owner.