http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rule-change-favors-unions-at-apf-2539152976.html?x=0
Not neccessarily a win for the unions It could mean more will vote in any given election and be more indicative of what the work force wants. Anyone who doesn’t vote then can’t complain about the outcome.
That might be true, unless the workforce had been educated over the years in the fact that no vote meant a vote of “no.” If that is the case, then, without constant reminding of the rule change prior to the day of the vote, the rule change could be a win for unions.
It’s about time. Maybe Wal-Mart will have to stop firing people for union activity.
It is incumbant on both sides of a voting issue to present their case and urge their proponents to vote. The concept of not voting means a “no” vote is self defeating so anyone who thinks like that is actually voting for the opposition or at least giving the opposition a chance to win. If there were to be even a 90% turnout for a reprsentatation election in a shop of 100, 50 or fewer votes could determine the outcome. If either side is not that interested in voting it’s full force, then either they are hypocrits or otherwise deserve the loss. So, this is not a pro union victory unless the anti union group is hypocritical of their convictions, or too lazy or otherwise not promted to vote. Likewise for the pro union point of view. Its like putting your vote where your mouth is.
I just can’t comprehend PAYING an organization so I can work. Unions had it’s place many years ago, and it has some usefullness (getting more rest for train crews) but how would it help Wal-Mart out (besides higher prices for its consumers)?
Unions still have a place, ask any coal miner about safety issues. It would also force Wal-Mart to treat its help like human beings and pay them a decent wage.
OK. That’s your opinion about unions but not about this topic.
Might as well get read in the prepucker position. Airlines Unions unhappy with the Delta/Northwest merger.
Short line RR’s can be a target. (now that there are consolidaions into larger Corporate structures, like Omni-Trax, or Watco, just to name a couple. (My prediction, it will get really ugly as the fight progresses.)
How about Federal Express Corp?. Currently only pilots are unionized. ( My prediction, having lived through the 1997 " Brownout" when the IBT struck UPS, it was a scramble).
Fed Ex was embroiled with the aftermath and threats that they would be targeted, and then UP RR’s ownership of Overnight Transportation was collaterally involved. UP RR eventually sold Overnight to UPS, and FED Ex had bought the carrier,(in 2001) Arkansas Freight ( nee Razorback Express) now AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS. so there would be parity with each other, and they could cut out some of their ad hoc carriers.)
One thing about it nothing will be a given as long as Washington is a payback for Union financial suport of the Democrats election process.[2c]
This certainly could lead to a fraudulent outcome if the union officials conducted the election. Certain ballots could be ruled improper, (hanging chad?). Then maybe secret elections were held. (We put a election notice on the bulletin board). I don’t want my employer to be forced to negotiate if a majority of employees do not want union representation.
You need to check out how a ‘Closed Shop State’ enters into the employement picture as well( Missouri comes first to my mind).
The other side of that picture is the " Right to Work State" where an employee is not required to join a Union, but can do that at the individual’s own option. ( a number of Southern States are in this catagory.)
Lets look at Obams Last Recess APPOINTMENT to the NLRB shall we. The Former HEAD of the SEIU and his stated goal was to INCREASE Labor UNIONS power REGARDLESS of what the LABOR LAW stated. This man was DEFEATED by 23 VOTES in the Senate at a Closure vote for Conformation when the Democrats had 60 Senators. Even Robert Bryd VOTED AGAINST HIM. Yet he has Seen Obama in the White House 23 Times since Obama took office Prior to Being put on the NLRB Board. So do we have someone that will respect a compaines right to challange an UNFAIR Union Election or someone that will give the Workers anyone that they want. BTW Industry is Fighting this so do not count the victory before it happens for one reason see the Act the changed was VERY specfic on what a non-vote meant they are now saying sorry you either vote or we will ram a UNION UPON YOU.
Btw my wifes company a UNION Nursing home JUST DE CERTED ITS why because they were tired of the Local refusing to help. The owner stated I will honor all contracts IN WRITING and also give a larger COL next year plus put in a Greivance commitee. Because of said commitee my wife who was being forced to work every weekend while the BOSS kept hiring her friends daughters for other positions my wife applied for finally got a better job at the Nursing home. Do not FEED ME THE UNIONS ARE GREAT BS. My father was a Teamster and was BLACKBALLED FOR CROSSING IN THE 70’s FOR FEEDING HIS FAMILY FROM EVER GETTING HIS RIGHTFULLY EARNED PENSION.
rightfully earned? Yea right, If he crossed the picket line he gave up his rights and became a scab, Oh and i dont want to hear you cry a river on BS…My dad DID NOT cross the picket and yes he was a teamster, Oh and he did get his pension.
Ive read all your complaints about how bad trucking is and how bad this state is and how this is wrong
Unions are in the minority. So of you don’t want to work for a union, THEN DON’T WORK FOR ONE.
Problem solved. I don’t like the fact that many Walmart workers are on public assistance. Why do I have to subsidize their workers? But I don’t go around bashing everyone who shops at walmart.
A scab is the lowest form of life known, they get what they deserve for crossing the picket lines of their fellow workers who are trying to get a decent wage and working conditions.
Any vote taken would of course have to be a legal election. No one said a union would hold an illegal election…that’s pure BS because it won’t happen…so why say it except to enrage union members and mislead and excite those ignorant of how the process and laws work. The premise of this thread is that this move by the Labor Department would favor unions. But there is no proof and in fact, in my opinion, it actually moves voting importance more so that whoever wants to win it can if they work toward it and get their constituants out to vote. The discussion should be about the process as stated and not be attacking unions or managment. It makes it just as easy or just as hard for either side to win. If either side is complacent enough not to vote, they lose; if either side works to get out the vote, they win. If one choses not to vote, he’ll more likely lose no matter what the outcome; but he can’t complain or blame. This is not about management nor unions, it is about voting your will. If you think you were outnumberd before, one way or the other, then here is your chance to get even; and now your vote is even more important than ever.
Very well said What i did get out of what i scaned thru is this gives a man or woman a chance to say yes i want union representation. with out the company that person works for to fire them or disapline them in any form. its just a step in the prossess of getting fair terms and a safe working enviroment.
I am against a procedure that allows a union to represent ALL employees, even though less than a majority votes for it. Let an election prove that a majority WANTS to be represented. The fact that a non-vote equals a vote for a change is hard for me to accept.
If someone can’t be bothered to vote, then I really have no sympathy for them if they don’t like the outcome. Is it fair to automatically count them as a no vote? I don’t think so.
Did Eleanor vote? Say man yo wont a hot apple pie wiff that,