Wal-Mart to employees: Don't vote Democrat

[DW]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_politics

Wal-Mart is afraid if Obama wins, it will be easier for unions to infiltrate their ranks.

Unions outlived their usefullness years ago, so I'm not sure what Wal-Mart is afraid of, but whatever.

[Diggin' Bear]

Vitriolic reply from TVMatt in......3.....2.....1.....

[Mr. Rugen]

Wal-Mart to employees: Don't vote Democrat
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Pro]

Unions to employees:
"Part of your dues are going to support the Democrats and other liberal causes and you have no choice in the matter."

Sure they do. Union officials are voted in or out by the rank and file.

[Pro]

If they don't like management they are free to leave.

And they are also free to start or join a union. Federal law gives them that right.

[Pro]

Then management can ask them to vote against Democrats.
And the union can compel them to give financial aid .
Sounds unfair to me.

And the union members can choose not to re-elect their leadership. They have no say on who the company's managers are.

That's the difference.

[Kace]

If true, then we should turn into a thread about John Edwards.

[Diplomat]

Interesting article. The union guy conerned about bullying has about as much credibility as David Duke expressing concern about racism.

[Sigonfile]

Weird, because I just bought two "Obama, 2012" T-shirts there yesterday.

[Pro]

That's what I love about you Pro.
Always willing to ignore the real world realities in order to further your viewpoint.

And every employee has a choice in who his manager is.
He chooses to work at any particular place or not to.

OK, how am I "ignoring" real world "realities" (redundant, yes?)?

And there is no way any Wal-Mart (or any private company's) employee can have any input on who the company's management will be. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just how it is in a free market system.

[Pro]

The union guy conerned about bullying has about as much credibility as David Duke expressing concern about racism.

How so?

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Has anyone tried the Great Value Double Cross crackers at WalMart?
They are Trisquit knockoffs.
Can't tell any difference between the store brand and the real thing.
Except the Great Value is about a thrid the cost.
Cha Ching!!!
We all get great food at low prices.
Now that is what I like.
And they have Great Value Wheat crackers too that are the same as Wheat Thins.
Same thing - about 1/3 the price.
Awesome.

[Pro]

Let me explain it to you real simple like, Pro.
Employment is a free market system.
A worker interviews for a job and if they want to offer him a job he can take it or decline.
It is his choice.
If he accepts and then decides he doesn't like the managment he can leave and find another job.
That is how a worker can choose his managers.
Nobody is an indentured servant or slave in the country.

And let me explain this to you:

The Wagner Act passed over 70 years ago, gives worker the right to organize. And employers are prohibited from stopping it. By law.

[Spike]

Unions to employees:
"Part of your dues are going to support the Democrats and other liberal causes and you have no choice in the matter."

That's not true. You do have a choice. You can opt out. It's federal law.

[Diplomat]

How so?

Union leaders love to bully people into supporting their chosen candidates and promoting political agendas that are all too often outside the mainstream. Union leaders suddenly become silent when their members engage in violence.

[Pro]

Union leaders love to bully people into supporting their chosen candidates and promoting political agendas that are all too often outside the mainstream. Union leaders suddenly become silent when their members engage in violence.

From what I have seen, union leaders look for candidates that will help advance the labor movement's agenda. No different than any other group, I'd say.

[Spike]

And Spike, I didn't remember that to be the case.
More background please.

It came up when we tried to organize my last television employer. Under the NLRA, if you object to your union's political activities, you can become an agency fee paying objector. You still pay dues, but only the agency fee portion of the dues that goes toward negotiation and administration of your collective bargaining agreement. You do not pay the portion that goes to political activities. As an objector, you are not a full member of the union, but you are still covered under the CBA and get the same treatment under the CBA that full members get.

Management loves to bring up the unions' political activities during organization fights (they did so in ours), but that's really a red herring since you don't have to support it.

[Produce man]

Long story short...Unions suck.

[Mr. Pratfall]

Well, regardless of whether unions are good or bad... if this story is true, then Wal-Mart sucks for telling its employees how to vote.

[Pro]

Not to mention people who would vote one particular way because their employer told them to.

[Kace]

Does this mean we call them Republi-Mart now?

[Diplomat]

From what I have seen, union leaders look for candidates that will help advance the labor movement's agenda. No different than any other group, I'd say.

They advance the agenda of labor union leaders. They're not promoting an agenda for people who work, just the people who lead the unions.

[Pro]

They advance the agenda of labor union leaders. They're not promoting an agenda for people who work, just the people who lead the unions.

They advance the agenda of the labor movement. Which has led to better pay and working conditions throughout history. Don't believe that? You're denying history.

[the original buttongod]

So what about the crackers?
Anyone try them?


...and yes, that's a "good cracker" !

($1 to Andy Griffith)

[Diplomat]

They advance the agenda of the labor movement. Which has led to better pay and working conditions throughout history. Don't believe that? You're denying history.

That is your opinion. What I posted is my opinion.

[Spike]

Well, regardless of whether unions are good or bad... if this story is true, then Wal-Mart sucks for telling its employees how to vote.

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if WalMart expressed a preference to its employees? Lee Scott won't be in the voting booth with them and won't know how they voted.

So what about the crackers?
Anyone try them?

If they're WalMart store brand, aren't they made in China with substitute ingredients that are hallucinogenic or are found in antifreeze?

[Union Label]

That is your opinion. What I posted is my opinion.

Your opinion doesn't match the facts. (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/index.cfm)

[Pro]

That is your opinion. What I posted is my opinion.

It is NOT "opinion" that the labor movement in this country has improved pay and working conditions for ALL U.S. workers through history.

[Pro]

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if WalMart expressed a preference to its employees? Lee Scott won't be in the voting booth with them and won't know how they voted.

It's one thing to say "We support Republicans". Quite another to say things like "If Democrats are elected we may have to close stores, cut jobs, etc." That's intimidation.

[cinehead]

I love how people with weekends off, paid holidays, vacation time, health care, profit sharing, pensions, hate unions. You think you would have any of that if it wasn't for the labor movement. You think companies would just be giving this away out of the kindness of their hearts? Pretty naive.

Sure, these days unions may seem useless and some have a history of corruption, but the pendulum swings and as companies consolidate and get more powerful, more people will start unionizing once again.

[cinehead]

Then management can ask them to vote against Democrats.
And the union can compel them to give financial aid .
Sounds unfair to me.

If all Walmart didn't do anything wrong, why are they denying it?

[Pro]

And the union can compel them to give financial aid .
Sounds unfair to me.
And the big "union" that I belong to - the United States of America - can "compel" me to provide financial support for a war I don't agree with.

To quote: "Sounds unfair to me".

[s'news]

1. I'm thinking most employees, if told of a voting preferance from a corporate employer, particularly one at the lower end of the pay scale, will vote opposite of what the employer suggests.

2. They have crackers!

[Pro]

1. I'm thinking most employees, if told of a voting preferance from a corporate employer, particularly one at the lower end of the pay scale, will vote opposite of what the employer suggests.

Not if the employer says (or broadly hints) that if the election doesn't go their way, they'll close stores and/or cut jobs.

[s'news]

Not when I worked at a crappy place.

[Lazlo Toth]

The part of the article that hasn't gotten much attention in this thread is the bill in question.

I would not want union elections without secret ballots. I think that could also be open to intimidation by both management or the union, depending on teh circumstances.

I am a member of one union (AFTRA) and have honorary withdrawals from two others (IBEW and OPE). My grandfather was a charter member of the United Mine Workers and my father was a member of the UMW and a number of other unions over the years. So I'm not anti-union. I get paid well because of the union's presence in my workplace.

But I oppose the possibility of voting without secret ballots.

[Spike]

I would not want union elections without secret ballots. I think that could also be open to intimidation by both management or the union, depending on teh circumstances.

That's not what the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110BOtaBf::) proposes.

When you try to organize a union, before you can vote you have to get employees to sign a petition saying they want an election. This can be in the form of signatures on a list, but more commonly it's in the form of petition cards that the employees sign and return to the union. The NLRA currently requires that 30% of the employees in the proposed work unit sign cards before an election can be held. The established unions typically require 60% to 70% of the cards to be signed before they will file with the NLRB on behalf of the employees. Typically some of those who sign cards will change their minds before an election, and the unions want to give themselves a little breathing room to make sure they're not taking on a losing battle.

So suppose you start a union drive and get 70% of the cards back, and the union you've chosen to represent you agrees to file with the NLRB on your behalf to represent you. Under current law, at any point above 50%, the employer can just give up and accept the union without a vote. That rarely happens. Normally the next step would be that the NLRB would schedule an election by secret ballot.

What this bill would change is that under the new legislation, if you got more than 50% of the cards back from the employees, the union could petition the board to simply certify the union without an election at all, without the employer's consent. It's not that the ballots would no longer be secret. It's that there would be no ballots at all if you got enough names on the petition.

Nothing would change with respect to the collection of the petition cards. That would continue to be handled exactly the same way it's handled now.

[Lazlo Toth]

I would oppose that as well. I think they should hold a secret ballot election. I might have been forced by peer pressure to sign the card and really don't want the union. The secret ballot would let me vote without the pressure of others coercing my vote.

[Mom]

A previous TV station for whom I worked attempted to tell its employees how and for whom to vote. The parent company of the station also owned a newspaper in the market. On the day before the general election, every employee was issued a missive that "urged" us to vote for the list of candidates that followed. It was noted that these were the candidates endorsed by the newspaper and that the TV station followed suit in those endorsements. So much for liberal bias in the media. Every name on that list was a Republican, save one.

[Pro]

I would oppose that as well. I think they should hold a secret ballot election. I might have been forced by peer pressure to sign the card and really don't want the union. The secret ballot would let me vote without the pressure of others coercing my vote.

On the other hand, this gives the company the opportunity to threaten your job should the vote not go their way. Illeagal? Maybe, but good luck getting that enforced.

[Diplomat]

The only time we were ever given a "suggestion" on how to vote was in a referendum on building a new stadium in hopes of attracting an NFL team. An aside--our GM at the time was a liberal Democrat and loved to remind people of it. He was also a jerk--even the liberals in the building couldn't stand him.

I voted how I wanted to--no business owner or union lackey has the right to tell anyone how to vote.

[Spike]

I would oppose that as well. I think they should hold a secret ballot election. I might have been forced by peer pressure to sign the card and really don't want the union. The secret ballot would let me vote without the pressure of others coercing my vote.

Those are the stories that make good scare tactics for management, but it's rare that that actually happens. The Board does not look kindly on unfair labor practices on either side. If a union is using intimidation to get cards signed, management will find out about it and will file for a board charge against the union. Since Reagan's presidency the Board has been increasingly unfriendly to the unions and will toss out an organization attempt if there's evidence of unfair practices.

It's really nothing like what you would expect. Nowadays, as soon as you get the ball rolling, the lawyers get involved to ensure that everything goes according to the letter of the law. Company management will usually bluster until they hire a labor attorney, then they shut up and follow the script closely enough that the union's lawyers can usually predict what they're going to do based on who their lawyer is.

I think this change could potentially have a bigger negative impact on the unions themselves. Under the current system, signing the card essentially means you want to have an election, not necessarily that you intend to vote for the union in that election. It says, "I want to see a campaign and hear more from both sides." The union will put language on the card to make it seem like you're voting for the union, but in reality you can change your mind.

When we did our drive, we used that to our advantage. Many people were unsure about whether they wanted to support a union, but when we explained that signing the card wasn't an actual vote for the union, they were willing to sign the cards to get the campaign going so they could learn more about it and get their questions answered. Without that second chance possibility, they would not have signed the cards, and our effort would have been dead in the water before it ever really got started.

What I suspect will happen if this legislation passes is fewer petitions filed with the NLRB. When the workers are made to understand that signing a card equals a vote for the union, they won't do it, and most union drives will end before they begin. It's difficult enough to get people to overcome their fear and sign the card without that added pressure.

Personally I don't understand why the unions want this.

On the other hand, this gives the company the opportunity to threaten your job should the vote not go their way. Illeagal? Maybe, but good luck getting that enforced.

It doesn't give the company any more opportunity to threaten you than the current system. From the company's standpoint, the cards are anonymous. The union is prohibited by law from disclosing who signed the cards. When the cards are delivered to the NLRB, they are put under seal and never revealed to the employer.

The only way the employer can know if you signed the card is if you tell them so yourself.

[Lazlo Toth]

On the other hand, this gives the company the opportunity to threaten your job should the vote not go their way. Illeagal? Maybe, but good luck getting that enforced.

How so? I think the secret ballot removes the intimidation factor on both sides. Management cannot know how I voted (unless it's unanimous) and neither can the union. I prefer it that way.

[Spike]

How so? I think the secret ballot removes the intimidation factor on both sides. Management cannot know how I voted (unless it's unanimous) and neither can the union. I prefer it that way.

The opportunities for intimidation that would exist under this new legislation ALREADY exist in the petition process. None of that would change.

[Pro]

It doesn't give the company any more opportunity to threaten you than the current system. From the company's standpoint, the cards are anonymous. The union is prohibited by law from disclosing who signed the cards. When the cards are delivered to the NLRB, they are put under seal and never revealed to the employer.

No you don't understand; I was agreeing with you...holding an election following the signing of the cards gives the company an opportunity to intimidate workers. Not individually, but as a group.

[Pro]

How so? I think the secret ballot removes the intimidation factor on both sides. Management cannot know how I voted (unless it's unanimous) and neither can the union. I prefer it that way.

As I said, they can do it on a group level. Threaten or broadly hint of dire things that they'd do if the union wins the election.

[Lazlo Toth]

As I said, they can do it on a group level. Threaten or broadly hint of dire things that they'd do if the union wins the election.

But I still don't get how removing the secrecy from the cards helps end intimidation.

[Pro]

But I still don't get how removing the secrecy from the cards helps end intimidation.

No, you still don't understand. As it is now, to certify a union in a shop requires two steps. 1) A sufficient number of cards have to be signed and sent to the NLRB. Then 2) an election is held. As it is now, once the NLRB informs the employer that enough cards have been signed to hold the election, the employer can start campaigning against the union - often by making threats against the workers as a whole, about cutting jobs or closing down. Often the atmosphere between certification and the election itself can be extremly intimidating.

What this bill proposes to do is eliminate the elections if over 50% of the covered workers sign the cards. It would make the cards the "secret ballot". If over 50% of the workers signed the cards, then it would stand to reason that they would also vote for the union....unless they felt intimidated by employer pressure not to.

[Lazlo Toth]

No, you still don't understand. As it is now, to certify a union in a shop requires two steps. 1) A sufficient number of cards have to be signed and sent to the NLRB. Then 2) an election is held. As it is now, once the NLRB informs the employer that enough cards have been signed to hold the election, the employer can start campaigning against the union - often by making threats against the workers as a whole, about cutting jobs or closing down. Often the atmosphere between certification and the election itself can be extremly intimidating.

What this bill proposes to do is eliminate the elections if over 50% of the covered workers sign the cards. It would make the cards the "secret ballot". If over 50% of the workers signed the cards, then it would stand to reason that they would also vote for the union....unless they felt intimidated by employer pressure not to.

And I think someone (Spike?) made a good argument why the two steps is a better way. Some workers might want the campaign in order to help them decide. They are willing to sign a card to hold an election, but decide later after hearing both sides that they don't want the union. I think this proposal would eliminate an important step.

Much of the argument seems based on the assumption that all employers or even most will try to intimidate workers somehow. If that's the case, go directly after the intimidation. Don't develop some back door system that eliminates the benefits of a two step process while trying to solve another problem.

[Lazlo Toth]

No, you still don't understand. As it is now, to certify a union in a shop requires two steps. 1) A sufficient number of cards have to be signed and sent to the NLRB. Then 2) an election is held. As it is now, once the NLRB informs the employer that enough cards have been signed to hold the election, the employer can start campaigning against the union - often by making threats against the workers as a whole, about cutting jobs or closing down. Often the atmosphere between certification and the election itself can be extremly intimidating.

What this bill proposes to do is eliminate the elections if over 50% of the covered workers sign the cards. It would make the cards the "secret ballot". If over 50% of the workers signed the cards, then it would stand to reason that they would also vote for the union....unless they felt intimidated by employer pressure not to.


A few other thoughts:
What if the employer DOES plan to close the shop if a union comes in? And they keep silent about that plan? I vote for the union, it comes in, and the employer closes the shop. And I say, "Why didn't they tell us they planned to close if we brought in a union? If I had known that, I might have voted differently. Instead, I was not allowed to make an informed choice. Now I'm a union member, but I'm an unemployed union member."

Also, how pristine is the card process? Does it come to my home and I make my card signing decision there and mail it in? Or does the union rep hand them out at work and Axel, my 6'5" 280 pound flat nosed co worker, stand next to me, making sure I check off yes on the NLRB card?

[Spike]

What if the employer DOES plan to close the shop if a union comes in?

That rarely happens, because it's rare that having a union will raise costs enough to justify closing a shop. If it does, it simply means the company was being run so poorly already that its demise was inevitable anyway.

Usually the threat to close down is an empty threat. That's why companies are prohibited by law from making it. Threatening to close down is one of the things an employer cannot say during a union campaign. Doing so is a surefire way to draw a board charge.

Also, how pristine is the card process? Does it come to my home and I make my card signing decision there and mail it in? Or does the union rep hand them out at work and Axel, my 6'5" 280 pound flat nosed co worker, stand next to me, making sure I check off yes on the NLRB card?

There are limits to what the union can do. "Union reps" can't do anything on company property. Only employees of the company can do that, and only during breaks. You can get fired for passing out union materials on company grounds during work hours. What is sometimes done is the employees trying to organize will stand outside the company gates and try to get people to sign cards or a petition list right there. In most modern companies it isn't difficult to avoid them.

The way we did it was to get a list of addresses for the employees and mail them the cards with postage paid envelopes for their return. I only saw two cards signed: my own, and another that someone signed and handed to me personally. I wouldn't be able to say which method is more common.

The unions are under the same legal restrictions as the employers. Attempts at intimidation can draw a board charge for unfair labor practices. If the NLRB investigates and finds that the union tried to intimidate workers into signing, the union can be barred from organizing that company, and any time and money spent on the effort is lost. If you try to organize your employer, one of the first things your union rep will tell you is to be careful not to engage in any intimidation tactics or anything that could jeopardize the effort. It just isn't worth the risk.

Further, it's not usually in the union's best interest to operate that way anyway, for two reasons. First, typically any intimidation comes from the employer. The union typically tries to remain friendly and open to provide a contrast. Intimidation makes people mad, and the union wants people mad at the employer, not at the union.

Second, unions have very little power to intimidate. The employer has your job and can threaten to fire you or make your employment a living hell. A union doesn't have that leverage. Physical threats are more than just violations of the NLRA. They're illegal and can get people arrested and thrown in jail. If a union supporter tries to coerce his coworkers by harassing them on the job, he can get fired, and the union won't be able to get his job back. Thus the union is at such a disadvantage in the area of intimidation that it just doesn't make sense to bother with it.

In our case, we had more intimidation going the other way from a small group who supported management. All our people tried to be open and honest and not say or do anything negative. We ran a very positive campaign. There was a group of about eight people who were vehemently opposed to the union, however, and they not only made up vicious lies about how the union would work, but one of them even tried to pick fights with me and another union supporter, to the point that he told the other guy to meet him after work to prove he wasn't a coward. Any of us who were assigned to work with any of them would get frozen out, with those guys refusing to speak to us, even to the detriment of the work we were doing.

From my perspective, the unions are at a distinct disadvantage, even when the employer is horrible. Just look at Wal-Mart. They treat their employees like sh*t, yet Wal-Mart has had little trouble squashing the effort every time it has come up. While I am uncomfortable with the idea of doing away with the elections, I do think the intent of the legislation, to level the playing field, is positive.

[Pro]

Some workers might want the campaign in order to help them decide. They are willing to sign a card to hold an election, but decide later after hearing both sides that they don't want the union. I think this proposal would eliminate an important step.

Then they shouldn't sign the card. The card should clearly state that it is a vote on union representation....up or down (as it is now, it states that it is just for the election). If over 50% of all covered workers know their signed cards mean union representation, and they sign it anyway, there should be union representation.

[Pro]

What if the employer DOES plan to close the shop if a union comes in?

Having a union costs the employer nothing. There's no law that says the employer has to do anything except negotiate "in good faith". That's it. The employer does not have to even hire anyone extra, he/she can do all negotiaions on his/her own.

Any gains the employees get come from collective bargaining (and that the union will protect them under federal labor laws).

[Spike]

Then they shouldn't sign the card. The card should clearly state that it is a vote on union representation....up or down (as it is now, it states that it is just for the election).

Not quite. The cards the union used in our case said that the undersigned wished to be represented by the union. That caused a bit of a stink, and I had to go along behind my union rep and assure the employees that the cards were not binding and were only a preliminary step. Management even played on that by circulating a draft of a letter for employees to send to the union to demand the return of the cards.

I would like to see that step be a little more honest, but the unions would rather have the cards worded so that they look like a final show of support. The reason they want it like that is that they actually don't want people to sign the cards unless they already intend to vote for the union. They would rather know before they start how much support they have so that they can avoid a campaign where they would really have to do some work to win the employees over. They don't want to support organization efforts that don't already look like they've been won.

Part of what's good about this legislation is that it will take that away from the unions. They won't be able to pick and choose their battles the same way by using the cards as a gauge of support.

Having a union costs the employer nothing. There's no law that says the employer has to do anything except negotiate "in good faith". That's it. The employer does not have to even hire anyone extra, he/she can do all negotiaions on his/her own.

Any gains the employees get come from collective bargaining (and that the union will protect them under federal labor laws).

Let's live in reality. Having a union does typically cost the company money because it usually involves an increase in wages and benefits. It doesn't do any good to try to pretend it doesn't.

At the same time, though, there are some benefits. The higher wages typically attract better workers and larger numbers of applicants to union positions. It also forces the company into some decisions that can result in better productivity. Whether the cost and benefit balance each other depends on the company and the specific situation.

[Marty McFly]

Dang... there's a lot (http://tinyurl.com/2w4apm) of scary shizzle in that bill! I wouldn't touch it.

[Pro]

Having a union does typically cost the company money because it usually involves an increase in wages and benefits.

Usually, but not always. And certainly not mandated by law.

[Lazlo Toth]

Fellas:

Thanks for all the good information. I am getting an education in labor law here.

The bill still sounds like a bad idea to me, but I appreciate the info you've shared.

[KROG-TV]

One of my primary concerns about joining a union was whether or not they (the union) contributes to political causes. I am opposed to giving any of my money to political causes REGARDLESS of the party affiliation.

I was assured that AFTRA does not use dues as fodder for political contributions by one of my shop stewards, who had called the local office to confirm that. It's one of the factors that got me to join the union. If I had gotten information that told me that AFTRA, as a union, supports so-and-so, and that I should vote for candidate x over candidate y, I never would have joined.

[Shot A Load]

I have many union family and friends. THey are told how to vote. How is this different? I do find irony in this in the fact that a recent presidential candidate was a board member back in the day.

[Pro]

I have many union family and friends. THey are told how to vote. How is this different? I do find irony in this in the fact that a recent presidential candidate was a board member back in the day.

Are they threatened if they don't vote that way? Endorsing a candidate and being "told how to vote" are two different things.

And BTW, a recent President was a former head of a union.

[Shot A Load]

Are they threatened if they don't vote that way? Endorsing a candidate and being "told how to vote" are two different things.

And BTW, a recent President was a former head of a union.

Who was threatened?

[Pro]

Who was threatened?

Employees have been told that if the union won the vote the employees could face job cuts and closings.

[Shot A Load]

SO it wasn't so much the company "threatening" as it is telling them of possible effects on the company. Poor choice of words on your part.

[Pro]

SO it wasn't so much the company "threatening" as it is telling them of possible effects on the company. Poor choice of words on your part.

Not at all. Any employee who's employer tells him/her that his/her job is on line because of the way they vote would say they felt threatened.

[Shot A Load]

The comparison is different then because you asked if the union threatened their members if they didn't vote their way. The context of the story and the context of your question differ.

[Pro]

The comparison is different then because you asked if the union threatened their members if they didn't vote their way. The context of the story and the context of your question differ.

OK....what is wrong with a union endorsing a candidate for political office? How is that being "told" who to vote for?

[Shot A Load]

I never said it was wrong just pointing out some damn the actions by the company when the other side are guilty of the same.

[Shot A Load]

I will also add that my friend (union brother) alway tries to tell me who I should vote and he will try to sell it to me as if I were a member. He doesn't seem to educate himself about things (he thinks Bush is in league with oil speculators) and simply votes with his brethren. I consider that more a character flaw than union coercing though.

[Pro]

I never said it was wrong just pointing out some damn the actions by the company when the other side are guilty of the same.

No. The union does not threaten to cause dire consequences for the employees if the election does not go their way.

[Shot A Load]

I don't think the company was going to cause dire consequence. I'm pretty sure they meant the unionization would cause the dire consequences. If there's another part of the article I didn't see I wish someone would link it.

[Pro]

I don't think the company was going to cause dire consequence.

If a company cuts jobs or closes locations, I'd call those dire circumstances. Trying to say "the union made us do it" is just blame-shifting.

[Shot A Load]

So now it's not threatening it's blame shifting? If a company has to decrease costs in some areas because of an increase in others, that's called business. Most business owners I've encountered would prefer to keep their profits. Why else would they do it? How else can they get investors to give them money? But it's hard to tell that to some as they feel the company (and the investors) don't deserve a nice return on the money they put in.

[Pro]

If a company has to decrease costs in some areas because of an increase in others, that's called business.

To a worker, it's a threat.

[Shot A Load]

Using your logic I would assume you don't think any business should exist since the there is always a constant "threat". BTW, you've changed your definition of "threatened" in relation to this story. Now the mere existance of the business model is "threatening" to every person who holds a job.

[Pro]

Using your logic I would assume you don't think any business should exist since the there is always a constant "threat". BTW, you've changed your definition of "threatened" in relation to this story. Now the mere existance of the business model is "threatening" to every person who holds a job.

I'm just telling you how the workers, understandably, feel. Do you think any laid off worker thinks "It's OK, they were just following a business model"?

[Spike]

I'm just telling you how the workers, understandably, feel.

I doubt you know how they feel. I suspect most of them don't feel threatened at all by what Wal-Mart says.

Do you think any laid off worker thinks "It's OK, they were just following a business model"?

Nobody has been laid off as a result of this legislation.

[Diplomat]

Personally, I prefer the terms "employee" or "associate" over "worker."

[Tripe Face]

Personally, I prefer the terms "employee" or "associate" over "worker."


Call them what you want, but FACTS (not opinions) show that "employees" or "associates" who are union members are far better off:


Union workers earn higher wages and get more benefits than workers who don’t
have a voice on the job with a union:

-Union workers’ median weekly earnings $863
-Nonunion workers’ median weekly earnings $663

Union wage advantage 30%

-Union women’s median weekly earnings $790
-Nonunion women’s median weekly earnings $592
Union wage advantage for women 33%



-African American union workers’ median weekly earnings $732
-African American nonunion workers’ median weekly earnings $533
Union wage advantage for African Americans 37%



-Latino union workers’ median weekly earnings $736
-Latino nonunion workers’ median weekly earnings $487
Union wage advantage for Latinos 51%



-Asian American union workers’ median weekly earnings $853
-Asian American nonunion workers’ median weekly earnings $823
Union wage advantage for Asian Americans 4%



-Union workers covered by employer-provided health insurance 78%
-Nonunion workers covered by employer-provided health insurance 49%
Union health insurance advantage 59%



-Union workers without health insurance coverage 2.5%
-Nonunion workers without health insurance coverage 15%
Nonunion workers are five times more likely to lack health insurance coverage

-Union workers covered by guaranteed (defined-benefit) pensions 67%
-Nonunion workers covered by guaranteed (defined-benefit) pensions 15%
Union pension advantage 347%

-Union workers with short-term disability benefits 60%
-Nonunion workers with short-term disability benefits 35%
Union short-term disability benefits advantage 71%

-Union workers’ average days of paid vacation 15 days
-Nonunion workers’ average days of paid vacation 11.75 days
Union paid vacation advantage 28%



Sources:
-U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Members in 2007, Jan. 25, 2008;
-U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States, March 2007, August 2007;

-Economic Policy Institute; Employee Benefits Research Institute, May 2005.

[Lazlo Toth]

Personally, I prefer the terms "employee" or "associate" over "worker."

Although, I'll settle for "paycheck recipient."

[Lazlo Toth]

Call them what you want, but FACTS (not opinions) show that "employees" or "associates" who are union members are far better off:



[/left]


Well, I guess that kind of contradicts this:


Originally Posted by Pro
Having a union costs the employer nothing.

[Kace]

Does this mean Diplomat's a racist? ;)

[Diplomat]

Call them what you want, but FACTS (not opinions) show that "employees" or "associates" who are union members are far better off:



[/LEFT]

I prefer the terms I mentioned. You think differently. There's that pesky freedom of individual thought again.

Joining or not joining a labor union should be an INDIVIDUAL choice. Period. Nobody should EVER be forced to join one and nobody should EVER be prohibited from joining one, if they so choose. Anything else is un-American, as I see it.

[Spike]

Joining or not joining a labor union should be an INDIVIDUAL choice. Period. Nobody should EVER be forced to join one and nobody should EVER be prohibited from joining one, if they so choose. Anything else is un-American, as I see it.

In other words, you don't think unions should exist at all.

The power of a union exists in the work unit's ability to speak and negotiate with ONE voice. If you allow the work unit to be broken up into a group over here banding together to exert pressure on the employer and a bunch of individuals over there undermining the union's negotiations with their own side deals, the union becomes completely ineffective.

This gets into game theory, where NOT joining the union becomes a detrimental Nash Equilibrium where everybody chooses the option that hurts the group because it looks like it's in the individual's best interest. Having a closed shop allows the Nash Equilibrium to be overcome through the creation of a Schelling Point that can be enforced. The Schelling Point in this case is union membership for all workers.

If you deny the union the opportunity to rally around that point and speak with one voice, there's really no point in having a union. Thus, by taking that position, the logical conclusion is that you believe unions should not exist at all.

[Lazlo Toth]

. the Nash Equilibrium

Ogden or Graham?

[Pro]

What I meant was there was no legal requirement for the company to spend one additional dime if the workplace was organized. Any monetary and benefit gains employees receive from the employer was achieved through collective bargaining, where both parties had to feely agree to the contract.

[Pro]

I prefer the terms I mentioned. You think differently. There's that pesky freedom of individual thought again.

Joining or not joining a labor union should be an INDIVIDUAL choice. Period. Nobody should EVER be forced to join one and nobody should EVER be prohibited from joining one, if they so choose. Anything else is un-American, as I see it.

Let's say you're in a so-called "Right To Work" state (like Tennessee). Your shop is unionized, but you're not a member. You get the same benefits from the contract negotiated by the union, and the union must represent you in all greivences you may have against the employer. They - and you - have no choice. That's the law.

Getting all the benefits of union membership without paying a dime is called "freeloading".

BTW, even in RTW states, it is legal to negotiate a contract that contains a provision for non-union members in the bargaining unit to be required to pay the union a "service fee", equal to what their dues would be. It's subject to collective bargaining, so the employer would have to agree.

[sonorandesert]

Personally, I prefer the terms "employee" or "associate" over "worker."
I prefer "just compensation" over a title.
"Associate" is a cop out.
So is "employee".
Same with the term "Team". :moon:

[Diplomat]

In other words, you don't think unions should exist at all.

The power of a union exists in the work unit's ability to speak and negotiate with ONE voice. If you allow the work unit to be broken up into a group over here banding together to exert pressure on the employer and a bunch of individuals over there undermining the union's negotiations with their own side deals, the union becomes completely ineffective.

This gets into game theory, where NOT joining the union becomes a detrimental Nash Equilibrium where everybody chooses the option that hurts the group because it looks like it's in the individual's best interest. Having a closed shop allows the Nash Equilibrium to be overcome through the creation of a Schelling Point that can be enforced. The Schelling Point in this case is union membership for all workers.

If you deny the union the opportunity to rally around that point and speak with one voice, there's really no point in having a union. Thus, by taking that position, the logical conclusion is that you believe unions should not exist at all.

No. Not at all.

It's an individual's choice. If enough people want a union, let them have one. But don't force someone to join and fork over their money to bankroll causes in which they don't believe. I don't for a minute trust union leaders who say, "You don't have to support this or that." I put them in the same boat with the United Way. I'll give to the individual charity.

If someone wants to join, they have that right. If they don't want to join, they have that right as well.

[Diplomat]

I prefer "just compensation" over a title.
"Associate" is a cop out.
So is "employee".
Same with the term "Team". :moon:

I am all for just compensation, too. I simply prefer "associate" or "employee" over "worker." Our dominant daily here always calls people "workers," save for references to anyone who is employed by the paper.

[Diplomat]

Let's say you're in a so-called "Right To Work" state (like Tennessee). Your shop is unionized, but you're not a member. You get the same benefits from the contract negotiated by the union, and the union must represent you in all greivences you may have against the employer. They - and you - have no choice. That's the law.

Getting all the benefits of union membership without paying a dime is called "freeloading".

BTW, even in RTW states, it is legal to negotiate a contract that contains a provision for non-union members in the bargaining unit to be required to pay the union a "service fee", equal to what their dues would be. It's subject to collective bargaining, so the employer would have to agree.

Those contracts are fine, provided they are agreed upon by employees and the company. Keep the union headquarters and government out of it.

Forcing people to support causes and candidates that are repugnant to them just to satisfy union leaders is called "immoral" and "unAmerican." Too many of my union-members friends have expressed their anger at having to support candidates and causes they deem to be against their moral code. Our local teachers' union is the worst--I'm surprised they haven't started following members into the voting booth.

[Kace]

Getting all the benefits of union membership without paying a dime is called "freeloading".

Sounds more like being thrifty.

[s'news]

The economic term is "free rider," I believe.

[Spike]

It's an individual's choice. If enough people want a union, let them have one. But don't force someone to join and fork over their money to bankroll causes in which they don't believe. I don't for a minute trust union leaders who say, "You don't have to support this or that." I put them in the same boat with the United Way. I'll give to the individual charity.

If someone wants to join, they have that right. If they don't want to join, they have that right as well.

That sounds lovely, except that the union concept DOES NOT WORK unless everyone participates and everyone is bound by the contract. You're advocating a system that would make a union completely ineffective and pointless and would kill the chances of most unions from forming. Why pay dues to something that has no power and isn't going to get me anything?

If this is what you believe, then you are revealing that you really don't think unions should exist at all. Why not just say it instead of hiding behind some smarmy crap about individual choice?

Those contracts are fine, provided they are agreed upon by employees and the company. Keep the union headquarters and government out of it.

The contracts are negotiated by the company and the employees. The employees will usually have a union negotiator at the table to assist employee representatives with the process, but the employees determine what they want in the contract. Even if there were only union reps at the table with management, the employees have to vote to ratify a contract before it goes into effect. If the union reps were to try to put something into the contract the employees didn't like, they could vote it down.

I don't know why you're worried about government getting involved. That rarely happens.

But then, you don't think the whole process should be happening anyway, so why worry about it?

[Diplomat]

Spike--it is useless to discuss anything with you. You think you have all the answers and claim to be an expert on every topic that comes down the pike. I am not buying it. I see right through your BS.

[Spike]

So, you don't think unions should exist at all, right?

[Diplomat]

So, you don't think unions should exist at all, right?

Unions have a right to exist. People have a right to join. They have a right not to join.

I am deeply sorry you don't understand that. However, it proves my point that you're not nearly as smart as you claim to be.

[Spike]

Unions have a right to exist. People have a right to join. They have a right not to join.

So they have a right to join, so long as there's no reason to join because the union doesn't have any power to do anything to advance their interests. Got it. That's like saying you can buy tickets to get into the stadium as long as there's no event taking place inside.

[Diplomat]

So they have a right to join, so long as there's no reason to join because the union doesn't have any power to do anything to advance their interests. Got it. That's like saying you can buy tickets to get into the stadium as long as there's no event taking place inside.

I hope you are having fun making up in your narrow mind what I think. I know what I think and I know what I said. You are having great difficulty understanding simple statements, which shows I was right to say that it is useless to discuss anything with you.

[Pro]

Too many of my union-members friends have expressed their anger at having to support candidates and causes they deem to be against their moral code.

As I said, the "union" I belong to - the United States of America - is forcing me to financially support a war that goes against MY "moral code". So what should I do? Demand that portion of my dues (taxes) back?

Same principle.

[NewsguyMark]

Wal-Mart deserves unionization because it is a company that has a history of failing to provide health-care benefits and because of the way it bullies people!

[Mr. Rugen]

because of the way it bullies people!
Like me.

[Produce man]

So, you don't think unions should exist at all, right?That's EXACTLY what I think...

[cinehead]

Unions have a right to exist. People have a right to join. They have a right not to join.

Well, if an individual is forced to join a union when they accept a job is because the company agreed to those conditions as part of the collective bargaining agreement. So the company is as responsible as the union when workers are forced to join.

Personally, I think people should be allowed to work in a union shop without joining the union. - But they should be denied any of the benefits that the union negotiated. Take the job, get paid, but no healthcare, no vacation time, no annual pay raises, no sick days or personal days. If you don't want to join the union, you shouldn't benefit from it.

[Mr. Rugen]

I think only people from opposite sexes should be allowed to join in a union.

[Diplomat]

As I said, the "union" I belong to - the United States of America - is forcing me to financially support a war that goes against MY "moral code". So what should I do? Demand that portion of my dues (taxes) back?

Same principle.

Not quite.

Nobody forces you to live here.

[Tripe Face]

If you don't want to join the union, you shouldn't benefit from it.

We ALL benefit from the Unions... even if we've never been a member for even a day.

If you work only 5 days a week during a normal week... thank a union member.

If you get paid vacation... thank a union member.

If you have benefits like a health care plan, a pension or 401k... thank a union member.

If you have never been injured or killed on the job... thank a union member.

If you have been injured on the job and received workers compensation... thank a union member.

If your pre-teen children are attending school instead of working 10-12 hours 6 days a week for a few cents an hour... thank a union member.

Most of the working conditions and benefits we enjoy today came ONLY after union members fought and sacrificed and sometimes DIED to gain those benefits for the rank and file working people in this country.

So like I said... THANK A UNION MEMBER.

Oh, and if you think America's business owners are going to just keep giving these benefits to their employees if unions disappear... put down the whiskey bottle and sober up. Wal-mart is a PERFECT example of what a company will do to its employees if there's no union to help fight for the collective rights of the workers.

[cinehead]

Um Tripe, that was my point.

[Tripe Face]

Um Tripe, that was my point.

I know, your quote just served as a good springboard for my rant.

I do agree with you... but I think that solution is unworkable.

[Kace]

So like I said... THANK A UNION MEMBER.

What if there's a recall or defective product? ;)

[Lazlo Toth]

THANK A UNION MEMBER.


You're welcome.

[Diplomat]

Henry Ford came up with the idea of the 40-hour, 5-day workweek because he felt it would increase employee production and thus his profits.

Dr. Philip Syng Physick came up with the first health insurance plan in America.

God came up with the concept of taking a day off.

Labor unions have helped many of their members but they have not helped everyone, nor have business owners. It depends on the circumstances involved.

[cinehead]

Henry Ford came up with the idea of the 40-hour, 5-day workweek because he felt it would increase employee production and thus his profits.

This isn't entirely correct. Ford did implement the 40 Hour work week, but the idea and demand for the 40 hour work weeks dates back to labor strikes in the 1800's.

[Pro]

Henry Ford came up with the idea of the 40-hour, 5-day workweek because he felt it would increase employee production and thus his profits.

Dr. Philip Syng Physick came up with the first health insurance plan in America.

God came up with the concept of taking a day off.

All of those are - or may be - true. But they didn't become common practice in this country - indeed, in the Western world - until labor unions pushed for them.

[Diplomat]

This isn't entirely correct. Ford did implement the 40 Hour work week, but the idea and demand for the 40 hour work weeks dates back to labor strikes in the 1800's.

I know about the strikes but I'm not so sure union leaders came up with the idea of the 40-hour work week. Ford implemented it and also insituted a minimum wage almost 20 years before he recognized the UAW. Ford Motor Company, of course, wasn't around in the 1800s.

BTW, compulsory education existed LONG before the rise of labor unions. Massachusetts was the first American state to implement that in 1852.

[Diplomat]

All of those are - or may be - true. But they didn't become common practice in this country - indeed, in the Western world - until labor unions pushed for them.

In your opinion. And that's fine. I will respectfully disagree.

[Tripe Face]

Henry Ford came up with the idea of the 40-hour, 5-day workweek because he felt it would increase employee production and thus his profits.




This isn't entirely correct. Ford did implement the 40 Hour work week, but the idea and demand for the 40 hour work weeks dates back to labor strikes in the 1800's.

For example the Knights of Labor founded in 1869 pushed for the 40-hour work week. That was a TAD bit before Henry started building cars.

And before you paint Henry as some saint, remember he was a notorious anti-semite and a Nazi sympathizer.

And Dr. Physick died in 1837... since Health Insurance plans didn't come to existance in the US until the 1900s... THAT claim is horsesh!t, too.

[Pro]

In your opinion. And that's fine. I will respectfully disagree.


Is history "opinion"? These were all issues fought for by unions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I mean, if I said that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 would you say "In your opinion"?

[Spike]

Henry Ford came up with the idea of the 40-hour, 5-day workweek because he felt it would increase employee production and thus his profits.

Henry Ford did that for his own company. He did not have anything to do with it becoming law. In fact he was opposed to other factories having 40-hour work weeks. The whole point of having a 40-hour work week and paying efficiency wages was to retain good employees by giving them incentive not to leave. If everybody else did it too, then he had nothing to offer.

Most other employers thought he was crazy and was throwing money away. They took it as a sign of arrogance and extravagance.

In contrast, the unions had been fighting for limits on workdays and work weeks since long before Ford was even born. The first strikes in this country for shorter work periods were in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Without the efforts of labor unions, we would not have a 40 hour work week set out in the labor law, we would not have overtime rules set out in the labor law, and companies would have no incentive to stick to a 40 hour week.

[Tripe Face]

Damn Dip.... Everytime you post something you get a whole flock of people who line up to prove you wrong.

Don't you ever get tired of being the Medialine punching bag? Shouldn't you at least KNOW something before you post about it?

"You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at!"

-Sundance Kid

[Kace]

So when do we start up a rant about, "OMG SCABS WTF?" ;)

[Produce man]

Damn Dip.... Everytime you post something you get a whole flock of people who line up to prove you wrong.

Don't you ever get tired of being the Medialine punching bag? Shouldn't you at least KNOW something before you post about it?
That's the kicker. Nobody ever proves him wrong.

[Diplomat]

For example the Knights of Labor founded in 1869 pushed for the 40-hour work week. That was a TAD bit before Henry started building cars.

And before you paint Henry as some saint, remember he was a notorious anti-semite and a Nazi sympathizer.

And Dr. Physick died in 1837... since Health Insurance plans didn't come to existance in the US until the 1900s... THAT claim is horsesh!t, too.

Given some of the stuff and people you support, you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your concern over someone being an anti-Semite.

Sorry, Tripe--Dr. Physick came up with the first known private health insurance plan in America. His plan began in the area of Philadelphia where he lived and died. The deal was that for $20 a year, people got all the treatment they needed. No, it wasn't a national thing, but it was the first known health insurance plan in the US.

[Spike]

Sorry, Tripe--Dr. Physick came up with the first known private health insurance plan in America. His plan began in the area of Philadelphia where he lived and died. The deal was that for $20 a year, people got all the treatment they needed. No, it wasn't a national thing, but it was the first known health insurance plan in the US.

So it wasn't provided by an employer as a benefit of the job? Then what the hell does it have to do with this discussion?

[Diplomat]

Damn Dip.... Everytime you post something you get a whole flock of people who line up to prove you wrong.

Don't you ever get tired of being the Medialine punching bag? Shouldn't you at least KNOW something before you post about it?

"You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at!"

-Sundance Kid

Do you think I care what you think about anything?

You have repeatedly said I threatened your family with violence. That is a flat-out LIE and you know it. I expressed concern for them because of YOUR volatility. Wishing physical harm and violence on people is something YOU do. Not me.

You often post your twisted view of American history--several times you have said that the Founding Fathers would be the leftie liberals of today. That is stupid--even for you, which is saying a lot. Trying to put the Founding Fathers into today's ideological spectrum is Obviously, you haven't studied much American history. You might have taken a class or two but you sure didn't study it.

You're the one who got all agitated when President Bush went to President Ford's coffin and didn't make the sign of the cross and called him disrespectful for that. United Methodists do not make the sign of the cross and most people who know anything about religion in this country know that.

You went on one of your tangents when I mentioned having gone to Phillies games and made some dopey comment about "we might have worked together." Yes, I have been to more than a few Phillies games in my life and I still have some family in that region. No, we haven't worked together. I've worked with 3 people who went to WVU and I know you weren't any of them.

You were banned some time back. I was among those who petitioned for your reinstatement. I would do so again, knowing in all confidence that you would never do that for any conservative-minded poster.

I could go on and on....but there is not time. And frankly, you're not worth it.

[Diplomat]

So it wasn't provided by an employer as a benefit of the job? Then what the hell does it have to do with this discussion?

Spike--pay attention. I know it's hard for you but try.

The concept came from Dr. Physick. Not from someone else demanding it in the workplace. It is wrong to credit them with an idea they didn't come up with.

[Spike]

Spike--pay attention. I know it's hard for you but try.

The concept came from Dr. Physick. Not from someone else demanding it in the workplace. It is wrong to credit them with an idea they didn't come up with.

Nobody credited them with it. If you look back at the list Tripe posted, you'll see this:

"If you have benefits like a health care plan, a pension or 401k... thank a union member."

Does it say unions invented health care plans? Even you can read well enough to see that it doesn't. When union supporters say to thank a union for health care plans, they mean health care plans provided by employers. That's because unions pushed for the tax incentives that are in place to encourage employers to provide health care plans. We would have very little employer-provided health care in this country were it not for the tax break.

Physick has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that, just as Henry Ford has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with the 40 hour work week being placed into law. Those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and are nothing more than attempts to set up straw men in an argument you can't win.

[Spike]

Oh, I can't resist:

You have repeatedly said I threatened your family with violence. That is a flat-out LIE and you know it.

Yeah! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!!!

I expressed concern for them because of YOUR volatility. Wishing physical harm and violence on people is something YOU do.

Oh man, in the same paragraph it's I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!?!

[s'news]

Can we all agree that Dr. Physick would be a good name for a rock band?

[Spike]

Can we all agree that Dr. Physick would be a good name for a rock band?

I was thinking it would make a good villain in a science fiction novel.

[s'news]

That'll work. The doctor would also be a union buster on the side.

[s'news]

And he'd cough a lot.

[Diplomat]

Oh, I can't resist:



Yeah! LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!!!



Oh man, in the same paragraph it's I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!?!

So now you are defending someone who lied and had the thread he started pulled because he knows it will prove him such.

Lovely.

Of course, you have claimed to be an expert in so many areas and then prove you're not with one or two very telling comments. So perhaps you deserve each other.