The changing rules of union certification
- Thread starter Don Smith
- Start date
There has not been an announcement regarding a decision, only an election to commence in February for the IAM.
As someone who is pro-union I have no problem with putting in a simpler process to decertify a union, but as you said it should be fair.
A simpler decertification process would make unions more militant and less cozy with management.
Currently if a company wanted to start a drive a drive to decertify a union all they would have to do is get some lapdog employee to start a bogus union and get or produce 50% plus 1 signed authorization cards calling for an election. Then get the employees to simply not vote because under current NMB rules all votes that are not cast are counted as No votes and in an election beteen two unions if the majotity dont vote at all , for either party, the result is both the incumbant and the challenger are out and the workforce becomes non-union. I would have no problem even if they dropped that to the 35% as long as only cast votes were used to determine the election, counting non-cast votes as "No-Union" votes is patently undemocratic.
The current system for union elections is not done fairly and its open to much abuse. Historically companies inflate the lists with the names of dead people, retired people, terminated people and management, and they get away with it.
The idea that a union should have to be voted in at every contract is pretty much already in place. Under the RLA contracts do not expire, normally the only way a contract terminates is if the union has been ejected. Are you saying there should be a union election every time a contract is amended? That I would be against as impracticle, you should also consider that there are elections every three years for officers in Local unions, and every four years at International levels, maybe thats where the reform should take place. Unions should have direct elections of Union Bosses, some do.
In voting OUT a Union can you elect NON Union status?
or can you only vote out a union to join another Union?
or can you only vote out a union to join another Union?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
If there is a representational election, a person can vote to be unrepresented. Currently that's done by either not voting or writing in a preference for no union on the ballot. If the rules change there'll presumably be a choice for no union on the ballot. Either way there has to be a representational election, which can only happen if the incumbent union is challenged by another union.
Jim
Jim
interesting, so once we vote IN a Union, we can never go back to non-Union status...?
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Delta, others seek labor board recusals
Delta Air Lines Inc., JetBlue Airways Corp. and other U.S. carriers asked two labor mediation officials to recuse themselves from a decision that would ease unionizing at the companies.
Full Story HereHarry Hoglander and Linda Puchala of the National Mediation Board have "prejudged" the case, making the "extraordinary action" of their removal needed, the Air Transport Association said in a Jan. 8 motion to the board. The Washington-based group represents more than 60 companies, according to its Web site.
Delta Air Lines Inc., JetBlue Airways Corp. and other U.S. carriers asked two labor mediation officials to recuse themselves from a decision that would ease unionizing at the companies.
Full Story HereHarry Hoglander and Linda Puchala of the National Mediation Board have "prejudged" the case, making the "extraordinary action" of their removal needed, the Air Transport Association said in a Jan. 8 motion to the board. The Washington-based group represents more than 60 companies, according to its Web site.
The only fair method I can think of, is the actual majority putting a union on any company property.
(regardless of ballot choice preference)
allowing an election to commence that can actually certify a union with less than the majority is not at
all considered fair, taking into account the fact everyone would be required to pay dues.
a simpler process of removal probably would keep them on their toes instead of becoming complacent, the union.
That is a near impossible scenario to happen, the time frame involved with even changing unions is equally complicated, I know, we have gone through it twice in the past several years. It creates anxiety, infighting and in my opinion, unnecessary stress.
Simply not vote? That would really end up a nightmare scenario.
If a group does not want to maintain an union for significant periods of time, they should not vote for one to begin with.
I believe the entire point was having those, the actual majority show interest securing a labor union.
It is how the entire airline industry unionized.
There is always room for improvement.
The way I would see it is simply, improve and address the process verifying eligible voters and associated criteria, dont just change an election and not address a claim, a voter list.
Basically, go over it with a fine tooth comb and then do it again.
It was a point being made, because some were requesting a democratic style elections, democratic elections are recurring. So the idea to compare a union election to a democratic election was not appropriate.
However this is to be decided, I will continue to believe the actual majority must put a union on the property and if the NMB intends to change an election procedure on one end, they too must change it on the other or simply leave the current rules in place.
Since the union initially filed in the summer, at that time a fifty percent plus one format was in place, that should be the voting method utilized as that was considered fair or they should not have filed.
Their own filing made a statement at that time, fifty percent plus one was acceptable.
So if you were in the jungle and had to cross a small crocodile-infested river to get to the other side and your guide says the only way to do it is to quickly run across the backs of the crocs and another guide runs up and says "No! They've just built a wooden bridge a half mile farther down the road"....you would still run across the backs of the crocs??? Life is not static, Dignity.
Another question for those with your opinion that the new proposed rule is somehow unfair in that a minority may choose over the majority:
Are you going to feel like a fool if the results come in and the majority actually does call in or log in to vote?? What if 10,501 vote "NO" union?
Why do you think the majority are not going to vote? Please answer that question.
I would not be in the jungle with crocs in the first place.
I view life based on my personal experiences and how I believe issues should be handled, keep in mind these
are my personal opinions and ideas!
I do not think, I would feel foolish either way based on how we are to proceed and the ultimate final decision of the group.
why would I?
The procedure that is being asked to be implemented, regarding the proposed ballot change can allow that to happen.
It has nothing to do with anything else other than the fact, that can happen with the rule change.
In these situations regarding unionization and the subsequent requirement of all employees paying dues, yes I believe the actual majority of a group should put a union on any company property.
Mr Bull, I mean Mr. Terrier---
You may want to look up the word ALLEGORY.
And since when has Babbles (Dignity) been closed-mouthed about anything on this board? You could paper the whole world with her musings in the past year. It's just that she knows that I'm right so there is nothing to say...either that, or she also doesn't understand allegory.
Mr. Luke, I mean Mr. Aisle, I mean Mr. Walker.
If you have to try to convince yourself that you are right by telling yourself you are, maybe you are wrong.
Regardless, (since irregardless is not a word) dignity makes a lot of sense even though you may describe her writings as allegories. I say, Dignity, we don't have enough to paper the world. Write on!!
Mr. BT
Similar threads
