A Case for Card Check?
Part of the Obama agenda is to bring in a card check for certifying unions. Democrats are broadly in favour of the measure. I searched the forum and saw that there were no existing discussions of the measure.
What it is: Card check would allow a union to be certified if a majority of persons at a workplace sign a card saying that they support a union as opposed to the status quo which requires a vote.
My issue: The status quo of requiring a secret ballot prevents unions and those leading a unionization drive from exerting social pressure on colleagues to sign up the union. It seems that this measure will replace a situation where employers have disproportionate power and influence with one where unions will have an unfair amount of power to put pressure on employees.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
It makes about as much sense as allowing a voter's neighbors in the voting booth to exert "social pressure" on the voter to counterbalance the "unfair amount of power to put pressure on" voters by corporate media, etc.
_________________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Stephen Lendman said in 2007 in The War on Working Americans:
For now the bill is dead, but if it ever passes, it will change federal law on worker rights. They'll henceforth be able to organize by signing cards authorizing union representation, penalize employers violating worker rights to do it, and establish new mediation and arbitration processes for first-contract disputes. It might also end or slow down the firing, demoting, laying off, or suspending without pay of over 20,000 US workers annually because of their union activities.
Hawkish Americans don't believe in free labour markets. They believe that every worker has a right to be exploited by capitalist dogs.
Card check allows for a union to be certified quickly and with less employer intimidation, harassment, firings and other dirty tricks. It prevents employers from violating workers rights in between when the employer is notified of the election and the day of the vote when they still lack union protection.
In my opinion, a union should be eligible for certification the minute you get 50% + 1 (a majority) of the workers to sign a card.
(must resist urge to talk about card check certification in provinces with NDP governments)
I think it should be as it is in Germany: one signature certifies the entire workplace. Or like it is in Sweden where something like 85% of the workforce is unionized.
I find it hard to believe that anyone still buys into the myth that a card check system is open to abuses. Peer pressure is an abuse?
Our dear friends in the business community want a two tiered system (sign a card and then vote) for two reasons. First, it creates time for employers to interfere and secondly, because they know it has a negative impact on union density.
Where else does one need to make a choice twice, before the true wishes of the majority are recognised?
The new elbbab - where marginalized and oppressed people have to justify their right to exist, all over again.
munroe, so the status quo is that in order to have a secret ballot vote a majority of persons in the prospective bargaining unit must sign a card supporting the union?
genstrike - I really have no idea how unionization drives work in Canada. Did the NDP have a similar system in some of the provinces where they were in power?
Fidel - is that really the way it works in Germany? What do they do if two different unions are seeking to represent the membership? A vote?
In B.C. 45% must sign a card before a vote can take place. The 45% is based upon a list supplied by the employer identifying the names of the employees. These lists are often padded with former employees or managers. The union does not gain access to the list unless they have 45% or can show a good case that padding has occurred.
It's a mug's game....
Before Gordo, an Industrial Relations Officer would conduct a payroll audit and independently establish the list. When it was card check, the cards were checked three times (by the IRO, at the Board Registry and by a Vice Chair). Further, there were random audits of signatures against independent forms and data. The 3 checks and the random audits remain, but the Province continues to claim it does not have the resources to carry out payroll audits.
It can be farcical. In a recent case, we convinced the LRB to check an employer's list (they claimed more than 730 employees. We even agreed to a relaxed standard. A payroll audit showed less then 380 actual employees.
The there is no penalty if the employer blatantly lies to the IRO and the LRB.
A two tiered system can be open to MANY forms of abuse.
It's actually more democratic because it requires a majority of all the employees to support the union, not a majority of those who vote in an election.
As for its prospects, a Franken victory in Minnesota would be a big boost to get them to 60. They may get there anyway, but either way, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. and their media allies, will be pulling out all the stops to block it.
I think workers should have to post an individual bond as proof they are serious about joining a union. I'm not talking about the usual 5 bucks or so, but maybe $25,000. It would be returned to them without interest upon retirement or death (or major disability upon production of satisfactory medical certification). If they participated in any unauthorized strikes, sit-ins, demos, etc., or gummed up the system with excessive grievances, the bond would be forfeit and they'd have to pay a fresh one or quit. I wouldn't be opposed to a. Bulk discount for foreign workers provided they arrived in the same container vessel.
Seems harsh maybe, but how else do we prevent Big Labour from fucking a poor business owner just trying to eke out a fair profit?
- This post brought to you courtesy of the New Elbbab.
Start your holidays a bit early, U?
Interesting, munroe, about the need to have 45% of those on the payroll sign a card supporting the union and the issues with employers not disclosing the list of employees and inflating the list. I hadn't thought of that.
So, you work for a union?
I'm going to law school here in BC; I'm going to take a class in labour law next year to learn more about this.
Yep I do, prowsej, in organising advocacy. I also spent 4 years at the LRB as a VC in the 90s. I've worked with a couple of articling students and the courses at UVic and UBC appear to have given a good grounding for the work that needs to be done.
Where else does one need to make a choice twice, before the true wishes of the majority are recognised?
In a voting booth?
___________________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
In the same election?
Sven, did you cast two votes for McCain and Palin?
I'm going to law school here in BC; I'm going to take a class in labour law next year to learn more about this.
In your first Labour law class, you will learn nothing of the practical realities that munroe describes above. You will learn about the BC Labour Relations Act (if your law scoll is in BC), the Canada Labour Code, McGavin Toastmaster Ltd v. Ainscough, KVP, and a bunch of other cases. If you're lucky, you'll find an advanced course in Labour Law that will touch upon practical realities of organizing like munroe has described. Law school doesn't deal with the practical realities of workplaces -- it sometimes gets into how the written law turns plays out in workplace situations.
In case you thought that munroe's example was the only problem in the "let the workers vote" process that predominates in Canada, think about these regularly used tactics:
- Everyone except the CEO is put onto the list of "voters" for the certification vote suppiled by the Employer to the Labour Relations Board staff conducting the vote -- so managers that the Employer will later argue should be excluded from the Bargaining Unit will be put on the list for certification vote purposes.
- Alternatively, the Employer objects to the inclusion of 8 or 80 or more workers on the list of employees. These votes are segregated -- if the margin among the remainig voters is less than the segregated ballots, spend months in hearings about whether or not each of these 8 (or more) positions should be included within the bargaining unit. While these hearing dates are going on, the Employer continues to pressure employees about how useless the Union is -- "they probably said they would improve your working conditions, but have they done anything for you yet?" The fact the Union has no right to do anything until the Union is certified as a bargaining agent usually doesn't matter (i.e. Don't confuse me with the facts...") Delay often becomes practical victory.
- Every province's Labour Relations Act provides that the Employer shall not participate in the process of Employees choosing whether or not they want to have union representation. Do I need to outline the number of times that this provision is violated?
Employers will even hire public relation firm lackeys in their attempts to crush any attempts at unionization.
Also when you get a chance read the details about the Latino workers who were being paid $3.77 an hour. Yup that's right here in good ole BC, Canada, working on the RAV line. So much for even government legislated minimum wage, and condoned by the Campbell and the Harper governments, both of whom had the power to stop it.
The Human Rights Tribunal awarded these workers $2,400,000 for among the many abuses, blatant racism. One of the tragedies in this whole episode of shameful treatment of foreign workers is that of course it will be appealed, and the workers who have returned home to their respective countries, will probably never actually see redress in their lifetimes.
These workers were eventually unionized, and that is the only reason their injustices were even brought to the HR Tribunal.
Kind of reminds me of the Raid on the BC Leglislature, and yet today, how many years later, still no trial.
Robo and Northreport have both added important details,Prowsej, but I fear Robo actually understates one problem. Gordo changes to the Code actually opened the door to employer interference in organising. Under the guise of `free speech`, an employer may now interfere in a Union organising drive. Section 6 specifically allows this to take place. Anything said by an employer is protected by Section 8 even if it interferes. This has been interpreted broadly by the current Board and nothing less then deliberate lies are A-OK. Ever tried to prove a lie was deliberate?
In other decisions, the Board has also developed `policy` whereby an employer is free to take actions that on their face are unfairs if there is a `business reason` for doing so. Read the cases on Sections 6(1) and 6(3)(c) of the Code with Gateway Casino in 2007 (I`ll post the cites in a few minutes). In Gateway, the Board allowed the Employer to change the duties of all of its supervisors during an organising drive in a manner that would have made them `managers` and excluded from union membership. An internal memo obtained in discovery proved this was done specifically to undermine their right to organise. No problem said the Board because they had a `business`reason for their actions.
You will learn that the Board must be true to the statute itself and cannot legislate through policy decisions. The interpretation of Section 8 was justified on this basis; the policy on a business reasons defence clearly offends the language in the Code, but the argument on legislating was summarily dismissed.
One last note - our LRB failed to see the discrimination found by the Human Rights Tribunal. Just another example of how badly politicised the LRB has become under the BC Liberals. I doubt Law School teaches this aspect.
The Gateway Casino cites are BCLRB Nos. B236/2007, B258/2007 and B81/2008.
For those unable to find such decisions at ease, try B236/2007 , B81/2008 and B258/2007 .
Thanks, Robo!
Thanks, robo and munroe, I appreciate those specific and problematic examples. I'll certainly remember them. : )