Proposition 113 perfect for those who hate unions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

E.J. Montini, Arizona Republic

Clint Bolick is a nice man and a good lawyer and, like many other nice people these days, he hates labor unions. This made Bolick a logical choice to write the anti-labor-union proposition on the ballot in Arizona and three other states.

The official title of Proposition 113 is the "Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment." Like many official titles, this one is a smoke screen, although it doesn't sound that way when a nice man like Bolick explains it.

"People ought to be protected from being forced to join a union or from having unions recognized where there is not a clear and voluntary expression of majority support," he said. "The unions say there is a lot of employer coercion (prior to an election), but I can't think of a better mechanism to weigh genuine worker sentiment than the secret ballot."

That's all very pleasant and civilized, but an honest title for Proposition 113 would be: "If You Hate Unions Vote for This."

The proposition isn't about protecting workers. It's about protecting the businesses who don't want workers to form unions.

The premise seems simple. Employees who want to unionize should be guaranteed the opportunity to vote by secret ballot.

However, workers already have that right.

The proposition is meant to set up a court fight between states like Arizona and the federal government, where Congress is considering a law that would allow a union to be certified without an election if a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted the union.

Those who support the proposition say unions intimidate people into signing the cards.

Those who oppose it say that companies use the time before elections to intimidate and manipulate workers.

The big-money interests behind the national Save Our Secret Ballot Inc. have committed over $650,000 to the Arizona campaign. They don't have to tell us where the cash came from. (I'm guessing it wasn't the wallets of working stiffs.)

Bolick is director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

He told me, "They (unions) do what they are supposed to do. But when you focus on the narrow and immediate interest of workers who are employed at a particular place and particular moment, unions can operate to the detriment of the greater good. . . . They can drive the whole business into the ground."

That has been the anti-union argument for years, mostly because it works. It's why so many nice people now hate unions, even as they enjoy the 40-hour workweek, paid vacations, health-care coverage and safety regulations that were made standard in this country through the sacrifices of union members. But we're a long way from "The Grapes of Wrath," "The Ballad of Joe Hill" and "Norma Rae."

Besides, who could be against a "secret ballot," right? Except maybe the very people who are sponsoring the proposition.

There remain on the books federal regulations that allow a business to withdraw recognition of an existing union without a secret ballot if that business can prove the union has "lost majority support." It's not easy, but a business can do this by providing proof in the form of signed petitions and other evidence.

I asked Bolick why Prop. 113, which guarantees secret ballot elections to certify a union, doesn't also guarantee secret ballots to decertify one. He told me, "I've never thought about that and haven't looked into decertification."

Really?

But the whole point of this proposition is to ensure working people's right to vote. Right?

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz11UsOXmUX

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are so full of BS, steven

In another thread you tell us how unions are "democratic" and now you want to eliminate secret ballots! Unions demanded, at one time, a secret ballot so management couldn;t find out who voted for unions. Now the unions want "check off" so THEY can see who voted for unions.

I say "eliminate ALL this BS and make unions voluntary, everywhere, for every trade and job" Problem solved.

And just as you have NOT explained why you are afraid of voluntary union mmebership, maybe you can explain why you do not like a secret ballot voting...you know, the "democratic" way.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

From the same newspaper:

Union 'card check' proposal a recipe for intimidation

Oct. 12, 2008 12:00 AM

Next spring, a U.S. House controlled by the Democratic Party will pass a bill along to a U.S. Senate that may boast a veto-proof majority of Democrats, which will forward the measure to a Democratic president who vows it will be a top priority.

It is known as "card check," or, officially (and ironically) the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a measure coveted by unions, for which they have shelled out over $48 million this year to help elect Democratic candidates.

What is "card check"? Despite all the Democratic interest, it is, without question, the most undemocratic federal proposal in the history of American labor relations. It is the antithesis of "free choice."

And nearly every Democrat in Arizona running for Congress, including newcomers Ann Kirkpatrick and Bob Lord, is foursquare behind it.

The right of workers to organize is anchored in a universal principle. Union leaders such as George Meany, Walter Reuther and Crystal Lee Jordan - the real-life "Norma Rae" - fought for it, sometimes literally.

That principle is the private vote. The privately logged choice to organize or not. A choice made without anyone looking over their shoulders - neither company thug nor union goon.

When the vote is secret, no one can leverage you. No can call you names or threaten you or your family. The history of union organizing in America is nasty, bloody and infuriatingly imperfect. But, in the end, labor leaders could claim they etched in stone the same right for workers that U.S. voters enjoy: the secret ballot.

That's all about to change.

Under the Employee Free Choice Act, unions will be able to organize workers - and, no small matter, collect dues - once they have collected signed cards from 50 percent of a company's workforce. Currently, the National Labor Relations Board allows an election if 30 percent of workers sign union cards. Now, the cards are deemed simply a "show of interest" - an informal method of getting to the heart of the matter, which is a vote. The EFCA effectively disposes of that bothersome provision.

The EFCA would enact other measures intended to strengthen the union hand, like imposing binding-arbitration requirements in the initial stages of the organizing process. But no part of the bill impacts workers like the card-check provision does.

Card-check advocates somehow manage to delude themselves that union organizers who are desperate to expand membership would not use coercive methods to strong-arm the last hold-out employees standing between them and an organized shop. They kid themselves into believing that card check is all about the best interests of workers.

It is in the best interests of unions, certainly. But not even current union members consider that the same thing: 78 percent of union workers oppose any form of voting that does not afford them privacy and anonymity, according to a 2004 Zogby poll.

Despite that, Democratic District 1 candidate Ann Kirkpatrick (over $100,000 in contributions from unions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics) is committed to supporting card check. So is District 3 Democrat Bob Lord (over $124,000 in union contributions). And so, too, is District 5 incumbent Harry Mitchell (over $219,000 from various union and organized teacher groups). Raul Grijalva in District 7, likewise.

Lord contends he is supporting card check because he knows people "who have faced threats and intimidation at work."

And having their names, addresses, phone numbers and positions regarding unionization known to union leaders and company managers alike helps eliminate threats and intimidation exactly . . . how?

You want threats and intimidation? Just wait until those workers find themselves as the last hold-outs in the "unsigned" column of a union card-check list.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2008/10/12/20081012vip-maceachern1012.html

[lostinblue 1,989]

“You want threats and intimidation? Just wait until those workers find themselves as the last hold-outs in the "unsigned" column of a union card-check list.”(You mean the beatings ,bombings and broken legs)

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://cbs13.com/local/hamidi.seiu.beating.2.1297874.html

State Worker Beat Up At SEIU Meeting

Ken Hamidi says he was beaten at an SEIU meeting.

A state worker is recovering after a bloody brawl at a union hall. He says members of the local SEIU 1000 beat him up and sent him to the hospital all because he wanted to expose alleged corruption within the union.

Ken Hamidi is a state worker at the California Franchise Tax Board. Last night he walked into a union hall in Sacramento for an SEIU local 1000 meeting.

"We had every right to be here, very simple; it wasn't anything private or anything exclusive," said Hamidi.

But Hamidi says the union members did not want him there.

"Three, four people jumped at me, wrestled with me, then did all that," said Hamidi. "I was covered in blood and then over to the emergency room."

Photos of Hamidi in the hospital show him bloodied from the brawl. So why did this happen? Besides being a state worker, Hamidi says he's an unpaid reporter for a cable access show and a vocal critic of the SEIU. He calls the state workers' union corrupt.

"This is a union hall that is leased and is being furnished and equipped and everything with our money," said Hamidi.

Hamidi says he came to the hall to expose how he says SEIU union leaders are spending tens of thousands of dollars on a political race, he claims, they have no right to do. After he and a photographer walked in to the meeting, it didn't take long for Hamidi to be right out the door and on his way to the hospital.

We called SEIU union leaders to get their side of the story, but they refused to comment.

No criminal charges have been filed in this case.

(© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Edited October 5, 2010 by lostinblue

[one...two...tree 2,762]

State Worker Beat Up At SEIU Meeting

More Local NewsLINCOLN (CBS13) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1

Ken Hamidi says he was beaten at an SEIU meeting.

CBS

And that proves what? That unions are made up thugs? Start your own thread filled with your anti-union propaganda. This doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The "Republicans hate Unions" special session has concluded with its singular non-achievement: passage (for the second time by this legislature) of a referendum, "save our secret ballot," which purports to create a state constitutional provision to require secret ballots in union organizing elections.

This bit of union hating theater is in response to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which has been languishing in committee in Congress since last year, and has little to no chance of passage.

Briefly, present federal law permits employees to sign a card requesting a union. When a majority of employees request a union, an election period commences followed by and NLRB sanctioned vote by secret ballot. All EFCA would do is make the election optional, i.e., that a majority of employees signing a card requesting a union ("card check") would be sufficient. However, if 40% of employees request an election by secret ballot, that optional procedure is still retained in EFCA.

In the area of labor law, federal law preempts conflicting state laws. Should Congress ever pass a law like EFCA in the future, federal law would preempt this referendum (constitutional provison) and render it void.

In other words, the radical Republicans in the Arizona legislature just pissed away your taxpayer money on a three day "Republicans hate Unions" orgy, er special session, that in the end is an entirely useless exercise in futility. Arizona deserves better.

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/08/reactions-to-the-republicans-hate-unions-special-session.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Get over it Steven, card check will not pass and if it does the states will fight it. The attempt by unions to bully their way into business will not happen.