PDA

View Full Version : NLRB sues for public elections



Apocalypse
11-01-2011, 09:11 PM
NLRB sues for public elections


October 30, 2011 6:00 PM

By Rick Manning


The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds itself in the news again as a federal court ruled that its lawsuit against the states of Arizona and South Dakota can move ahead.


The heinous crime committed by these states (along with South Carolina and Utah, which are not being sued) that drew the ire of the NLRB? The people of these states had the audacity to overwhelmingly vote in favor of state constitutional amendments last November that ensures workers secret ballot union elections.


Thatís right; our federal government is suing states because they want to protect their citizensí right to one of the most fundamental of all American principles ó the ability to keep their vote secret.


In the whatís-up-is-down world of the Obama Administration, protecting the secret ballot election when deciding whether workers want to unionize brings the hammer of an NLRB lawsuit down upon you.


After all, their Big Labor political allies just spent hundreds of millions of dollars seeking to convince Congress to allow them to shelve secret ballot elections all together, so after failing that, it is only logical that the Obama NLRB would sue states that protected them.


The NLRB claims the state constitutional amendments conflict with current federal law that gives employers the option to recognize a union if a majority of workers simply sign cards.


Not surprisingly, the voters of the states of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah passed their constitutional amendments specifically to stop workers in their states from being organized without having the right to vote, without the coercion of having a co-worker looking over your shoulder while you decide.


http://www.oaoa.com/articles/states-74854-nlrb-elections.html


Read the rest.

noonwitch
11-02-2011, 12:58 PM
The UAW uses all this alleged security on their ballots. The only time I vote in their elections is on contracts. I could care less who the union leaders are, as all of them are people who work for the union because they were too incompetent to continue to do their assigned job, and union stewards have a lot of protection from layoffs and disciplinary actions.


They rig our elections, anyways, so why do they need to do away with secret ballots?

fettpett
11-02-2011, 01:56 PM
The UAW uses all this alleged security on their ballots. The only time I vote in their elections is on contracts. I could care less who the union leaders are, as all of them are people who work for the union because they were too incompetent to continue to do their assigned job, and union stewards have a lot of protection from layoffs and disciplinary actions.


They rig our elections, anyways, so why do they need to do away with secret ballots?

sounds like a pretty damn good argument to get rid of unions

noonwitch
11-02-2011, 04:12 PM
sounds like a pretty damn good argument to get rid of unions


Here's the thing-we need them to enforce rules about working conditions and to deal with management issues. I like some of the people we deal with on this level. They are professionals, either as negotiaters or as litigators, and are usually not exclusively employed by the union, but are on contract with them .

What I hate is the union leadership, both my local and in the international UAW. My local reps are my former coworkers, the ones who were too incompetent to do their original jobs. The international only cares about auto workers and private sector employees, since they don't have civil service salary caps, and can make collect more dues if they can get those employers to pay their members higher wages.


I really think that we should have a union, but our union should not be allowed to donate money to political campaigns, nor make endorsements. This gets the UAW out and puts in a smaller, less expensive union. It could save the employees a lot of money, and it could end up being better for both sides if they focus on compromise instead of confrontation.