Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There has not been an announcement regarding a decision, only an election to commence in February for the IAM.Forgive me for not reading all of the past post as I have been away from the board for awhile. What is the latest on when the decision from the NMB will be annonced?
Remember that whole thread that was being discussed and how I sort of thought a YES/NO ballot must be on both ends, and then thought it would also be a good option to have that on the other end to vote the Union off the property with another election!
I don't have any idea why it would have been a problem.
I thought it made sense..
I do not really understand why anyone would have an issue with that, but of course who knows?
Dignity
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
The only fair method I can think of, is the actual majority putting a union on any company property.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 process of removal probably would keep them on their toes instead of becoming complacent, the union.A simpler decertification process would make unions more militant and less cozy with management.
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.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.
Simply not vote? That would really end up a nightmare scenario.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 believe the entire point was having those, the actual majority show interest securing a labor 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.
There is always room for improvement.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
Not avoidance, intelligence. Big difference.Avoidance. (Sigh) So dull yet not so surprising. :down:
Not avoidance, intelligence. Big difference.
Mr. Luke, I mean Mr. Aisle, I mean Mr. Walker.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.