spacer
Blog

Update: Senator Harkin justifies vote saying NLRB nomineee “cannot” change the rules
When it comes to whether NLRB nominee Craig Becker can “implement the Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat,” AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff says “yes”. Senator Harkin justified his pro-Becker vote yesterday by saying “no”. This comes directly from Senator Tom Harkin’s prepared statement at the HELP Committee Executive Session on Pending Nominations yesterday.  Shout out to [more...]

Posted Fri, 05 Feb 2010 .

AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff: NLRB appointees can “change the rules”
Update: Senator Harkin justifies vote saying NLRB nomineee “cannot” change the rules As the Director of Organizing at the AFL-CIO, Stewart Acuff draws a smaller crowd than the SEIU’s Andy Stern or his boss at the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have something laughable to say. In his poorly timed Huffington Post [more...]

Posted Thu, 04 Feb 2010 .

 Read more at LaborPains.org

Why is a Union Like A Roach Motel?

Male, Pale & Stale
enlarge download .pdf
Labor officials try to lure employees into unionization with a simple (but unfair) process of signing a card, but then turn around and demand a formal election for employees to get rid of bad unions.

True secret ballot elections overseen by the National Labor Relations Board are clearly recognized as the most democratic means of choosing unionization. The D.C. Court of Appeals said in 1991 that “Freedom of choice is a matter at the very center of our national labor relations policy, and a secret election is the preferred method of gauging choice.” And the Miami Herald recently editorialized that “the best chance for fairness consists of taking an accurate count by secret ballot, a staple of our democratic system.” But unions chiefs only want these elections, which take time and effort to schedule and administer, when employees want to decertify unions.

Meanwhile, unions try to gain new members through a process of signing cards. “Card check” campaigns are just one element of a two-part strategy that union officials use to avoid fair elections. First, union officials force employers (through boycotts, pickets, and demonizing a company's brand through expensive public relations campaigns) to accept “neutrality” agreements. Under this agreement, the business gives up its right to ask for a secret ballot election and recognizes a union if enough employees sign cards. The union then moves on to the second part of its strategy, in which it seeks employee signatures on cards. But as they collect these signatures, union organizers too often harass and intimidate employees, who lose their right to a personal, private vote because of the previously agreed-to “neutrality agreement” their employer was harassed into signing.

If union officials believed so much in their “card check” method, why won't they let union members use the same technique to escape?


Click to view Click to view Click to view
Click to view Click to view Click to view
Click to view Click to view Click to view